UMARY  C 


'*  •  <■  :^'^‘  •,  '  »..•  -iT  '„  .  ►  L^*,'’"' 


■  V’.-  :  ■••:■ 

■  ':■  .?  •;  3: <  “  ^  ,1.  .  .' 

',■■■'  -Si-''  ’  '"  ■  "•*  I  .'J  '...■.  ; 


■  '■  -i 


JUL132B? 


THtOtOaCOi  8(— II WIV 


i 

iii 


THE  CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA 
NEW  TESTAMENT  STUDIES 
NO.  IV 


ST.  PAUL%*  CONCEPT  OF 


ACCORDING  TO  ROM. 


lAASTHPION 

III,  25 


AN  HISTORICO^EXEGETICAL  INVESTIGATION 


2Di0fifertation 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OH  THE  SACRED  SCIENCES  AT  THE  CATHOLIC 
UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE 
REQUIREMENTS  FOB  THE  DOCTORATE  IN  THEOLOGY 


BY  THE 

REV.  ROMUALD  ALPHONSE  MOLLAUN,  O.F.M.,  S.T.L., 

. —  _  . 

OF  THE  PROVINCE  OF  ST,  JOHN  BAPTIST 
CINCINNATI,  OHIO 


St.  Mary'g  Seminary  Library* 
Baltimore.  Fi/So. 


THE  CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF,  AMERICA 
Washington,  D.  C. 

1923 


I  ■  :•.) 

•■'r. 


31421 


Nihil  Obstat. 


Imprimi  Potest. 

Nihil  Obstat. 


Imprimatur. 


Eduinus  J.  Auweiler,  0.  F.  M.,  Ph.  D., 

Censor  Deputatus. 


Edmundus  Klein,  0.  F.  M., 

Minister  Provincialis. 

Henricus  Schumacher,  S.  T.  D., 

Censor  Deputatus. 

Michael  J.  Curley,  D.  D., 

Ardhiepiscopus  Baltimorensis. 


Ill 


PREFACE 


In  Rom.  Ill,  25  St.  Paul  says  of  Jesus  Christ:  01/  irpoeOero  6  ©eo? 
tkacTTrjpLov  Sea  rij^  ttiVtco)?  iv  tm  avTOV  at/mri.  What  is  the  meaning 
of  IXaxjTyptov  in  this  important  Christological  statement?  Modern 
exegetes  have  sought  in  vain  for  a  satisfactory  answer  to  this  ques¬ 
tion.  As  the  context  shows  the  term  is  intimately  connected  with 
the  doctrines  of  justification,  redemption,  atonement,  etc.,  and  all 
these  problems  have  received  and  are  receiving  constant  attention. 
Hence,  a  special  treatise  on  the  Pauline  IXoar^pLov  is  both  necessary 
and  opportune.  With  the  hope,  therefore,  of  removing  the  confu¬ 
sion  with  which  modern  exegesis  has  surrounded  the  term  and  of 
presenting  a  definite  conclusion  to  the  problem,  this  monograph  has 
been  prepared. 

To  the  Rev.  Dr.  Heinrich  Schumacher,  Professor  of  Hew  Testa¬ 
ment  Exegesis  at  the  Catholic  University  of  America,  the  author 
owes  a  particular  indebtedness,  and  wishes  to  express  to  him  his 
acknowledgment  for  the  guiding  and  helpful  service  rendered  in 
writing  this  monograph.  He  likewise  desires  to  express  sincerest 
gratitude  to  the  Rev.  Edwin  J.  Auweiler,  0.  F.  M.,  Ph.  D.,  for 
most  valuable  suggestions  in  the  presentation  of  the  matter,  and  to 
the  Rev.  Ermin  Schneider,  0.  F.  M.,  for  his  careful  revision  of  the 
manuscript. 

Romuald  A.  Mollaun,  0.  F.  M. 


V 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/stpaulsconceptofOOmoll 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION  .  1 

PART  I.— HISTORICAL 

CHAPTER  I.  The  Text .  5 

CHAPTER  II.  History  of  the  Interpretation'  of  IAA2THPI0N.  8 

1.  In  Modern  Exegesis .  8 

2.  In  the  Greek  Fathers . 25 

3.  In  the  Latin  Fathers . . .  37 

4.  In  the  Exegesis  of  the  Middle  Ages  down  to  Modern  Times . .  40 

PART  II.— EXEGETICAL 

CHAPTER  III.  Historico-Literary  Investigation  of  IAAS- 
KES6AI  AND  ITS  Derivatives. 

1.  In  the  Hellenic  World .  45 

2.  In  the  LXX  and  Jewish  Tradition .  55 

3.  In  Philo . 65 

4.  In  Post-LXX  Times .  67 

CHAPTER  IV.  Application  of  the  Results  to  Rom.  Ill,  25 . . .  90 

CONCLUSION .  96 

ABBREVIATIONS  .  99 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  .  101 


Vll 


ly,') ». 


<<  •' 

r'* 


■S' 


••  r.:* 


•  ^  «  *  »  .< 


< 


t, 


■m 


\ 


/. 


I 


*'V  •■  :' 


>1 


* ,  <;  - 


>. ' 


y 

,f''i 


*v 


m. 


>'  •■■•  l.t 


'*/•  '  ' 


f./*' 

.  \v  A 


A 


.  ^ 


< 


INTEODUCTION 


"l\a<TTT]pLov  in  Eom.  iii^  25  is  recognized  by  modern  exegetes  as 
a  term  of  very  special  importance.  Deissmann  has  well  said: 

Dass  znr  Erklarung  dieses  feierlichen  Paulnsbekenntnisses  keine 
Vorarbeit  zii  schwierig  nnd  zu  genaii  sein  kann,  ist  gewis's;  wir 
stehen  bier  vor  dem  Zentrnm  der  Frommigkeit  des  Apostels’k^ 
The  profound  difficulties  surrounding  this  famous  passage  and  the 
painstaking  study  demanded  for  its  solution  explain  the  wide 
divergencies  among  modern  authors  as  to  its  precise  literal  mean¬ 
ing.  The  words  of  Schweizer  may  sound  exaggerated  but  an  inves¬ 
tigation  of  the  history  of  the  problem  in  recent  exegesis  will  bear 
out  his  remark:  “  Unstreitig  ist  der  Sinn  dieser  Stelle  so  schwer 
auszumitteln,  dass  kaum  je  eine  Auslegung  allgemeine  Anerken- 
nung  linden  durfte^k^  Even  the  foremost  scholars  of  the  present 
day  confess  their  inability  to  grasp  and  understand  St.  Paul’s 
concept  of  tAao-r^piov.  Sanday-Headlam  speak  of  it  thus :  Fol¬ 
lowing  the  example  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  and  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  we  speak  of  something  in  this  great  Sacrifice,  which 
we  call  ^  Propitiation  k  We  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  spoke 
through  these  writers,  and  that  it  was  His  Will  that  we  should  use 
this  word.  But  it  is  a  word  which  we  must  leave  it  to  Him  to 
interpret.  We  drop  our  plummet  into  the  depth,  but  the  line 
attached  to  it  is  too  short,  and  it  does  not  touch  the  bottom.  The 
awful  processes  of  the  Divine  Mind  we  cannot  fathom  ’k  ^ 

In  the  face  of  this  discouraging  confession  an  investigation  of 
the  problem  would  seem  almost  hopeless  of  results.  Yet  the  ex¬ 
treme  difficulty  of  the  question  may  well  arouse  interest  and  the 
earnest  desire  for  a  satisfactory  answer,  while  the  importance  of 
IXaaT^pLov  for  N.  T.  theology  justifies  our  attempt  at  a  solution  in 
a  monograph.  Eecent  research,  especially  by  Deissmann,  seems  to 
open  new  avenues  in  the  right  direction  and  our  undertaking  is 
invited  by  the  prospects  of  a  fair  measure  of  success. 

"lAASTHPIOS  und  IAA2THPI0N,  ZntlW  (1903),  208-209. 

^StK^  (1858),  466. 

®  Ep.  to  the  Rom.,  94. 

1 


I 


i 


j 


I 


PART  I— HISTORICAL 


.f 


CHAPTEE  I 


The  Text 


The  Pauline  IXaar^pLov  is  not  a  problem  of  textual  criticism  but 
one  of  historico-exegetical  investigation.  Hence,  at  the  very  outset 
it  is  important  to  note  1)  any  variants  of  the  text,  and  2)  to 
know  what  meaning  the  term  is  given  in  the  versions. 

According  to  Tischendorff  ^  the  Latin  of  the  bilingual  codes 
Claramontanus  (D),  S anger manensis  (E),  and  Boernerianus  (G) 
is  propitiatorem  Propitiatorem  is  also  the  translation  of 
the  Latin  patristic  writers  Ambrosiaster,^  Pelagius,^  Ambrose,^ 
Jerome,®  and  Orosius.®  Augustine  ’’  in  two  passages,  and  Eufinus  ^ 
in  three  places  in  his  recension  of  Origen’s  commentary  on  the 
Eoman  epistle,  have  propitiatorium  In  one  place  Eufinus  ^ 
has  propitiatorium  (sive  propitiatorem)”.  The  translation  pla- 
cationem  ”  is  found  in  Hilary.^®  Most  Latin  translations  follow 
the  Vulgate,^^  which  has :  Quern  proposuit  Deus  propitiationem 
per  fidem  in  sanguine  ipsius  ”.  However,  we  learn  from  Tischen- 
dorff  that  the  Vulgate  code  Harleianus**  ^(harl)  reads  propi¬ 
tiatorem  ”. 

Eight  here  we  are  presented  with  four  different  renderings  in 
the  Latin.  More  varied  and  even  surprising  translations  occur 
in  other  versions. 

A  quite  unusual  reading  is  offered  by  the  Bohairic:  ^^Whom 
God  before  set  as  a  forgiver  (  orpeifx®’  )  through  (the)  faith 
in  his  blood  ” ;  the  Sahidic  on  the  other  hand  gives  IXaargpLov 
an  abstract  meaning:  This  (one)  whom  God  put  aforetime  for 
forgiveness  (  if  KCW  )  through  the  faith  in  his  blood.”  The  editors 
of  the  Sahidic  version  inform  us  that  the  Syriac,  Armenian,  and 

^  Novum  Testamentum  Graece,  II,  378,  Lipsiae,  1872. 

2MPL,  17,  80.  JMPL,  44,  133  and  213. 


«  MPG,  14,  947,  949,  950. 
»MPG,  14,  946. 

^®MPL,  9,  415. 


3MPL,  30,  661. 
^  MPL,  14,  577. 
®  MPL,  23,  506. 


«MPL,  31,  1188., 

“  Vogels,  Novum  Testamentum  Graece  et  Latine,  Diisseldorf,  1922. 
^^Op.  cit.,  378. 

“Horner,  Coptic  Version  of  the  N.  T.  (Northern  Dialect),  III,  22. 
“Coptic  Version  of  the  N.  T.  (Southern.  Dialect),  IV,  32. 


5 


6 


EtMopic  versions  read :  For  pnt  him  God,  and  made  him  an 
atonement  for  faith  in  his  blood  ;  while  the  Ethiopic  ro  has : 

For  because  of  him  he  gave  to  us  his  mercy  in  faith  The 
Arabic^®  retains  the  reading  propitiator ium^’ :  Quern  Deus  prae- 
constituit  propitiatorium  per  fidem,  interveniente  ipsius  sanguine 

With  such  an  assortment  of  meanings  to  select  from,  we  need  not 
be  at  all  astonished  to  find  all  early  authorities  for  the  English 
translation  at  variance  in  interpreting  iXacrrypiov  in  Eom.  iii,  25. 
Wiclif  translates:  Whom  God  ordeynde  forghyvere  hi  feith  in 
his  blood  Tyndale  prefers :  Whom  God  hath  made  a  seate 
of  mercy  thorow  faith  in  his  blond  ’b  Cranmer  reads :  Whom 
God  hath  set  forth  to  be  the  obtayner  of  m,ercy  thorow  fayth,  by  the 
meanes  of  hys  blonde  The  Geneva  Edition  chooses  the  ab¬ 
stract  'meaning :  Whom  God  hath  set  forthe  to  be  a  pacification 
through  faith  in  his  blonde  Later  and  modern  editions  gen¬ 
erally  affect  propitiation,  the  Eevised  Version  having  on  the 
margin  to  be  propitiatory  But  the  Twentieth  Century  IST.  T.^^ 
has :  For  God  set  him  before  the  world,  to  be,  by  the  shedding 

of  his  blood,  a  means  of  reconciliation  through  faith  ’b 

Neither  do  we  find  a  uniform  rendering  in  the  German. 
According  to  the  Lutheran  bible  the  passage  means:  ^^Welchen 
Gott  hat  vorgestellt  zu  einem  Gnadenstuhl,  durch  den  Glauben 
in  seinem  Blut  ^b^^  Cartier  who  translates  from  the  Vulgate 
has :  Welchen  Gott  zur  Aussohnung  durch  den  Glauben  in  seinem 
Blut  vorgestellt  hat  and  Arndt  who  also  bases  his  translation 
on  the  Vulgate  chooses:  ^AVelchen  Gott  dargestellt  hat  als  Siihne 
durch  den  Glauben  in  seinem  Blute  ^b  Jaeck  and  Allioli  also 

Op.  cit.,  33. 

Waltonus,  Biblia  Polyglotta,  V,  645,  London,  1657. 

”  The  New  Testament  translated  from  the  Latin  in  the  year  1380  by  J. 
Wiclif,  London,  1810. 

“  The  New  Testament  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  published 
in  1526,  London,  1836. 

^®The  English  Hexapla,  London,  1846.  'pjjg  English  Hexapla. 

The  Holy  Bible,  Two  Version  Edition,  1244-1245,  Oxford,  1899. 

Twentieth  Century  New  Testament,  a  translation  from  the  original 
Greek,  355,  New  York,  1904. 

Die  Bibel  nach  der  deutschen  Uebersetzung  Martin  Luther’s,  128,  Coin, 
1876. 

’‘‘Biblia  Sacra  Latino-Germanica,  IV,  303,  Constantiae,  1763. 

Das  Neue  Testament,  116,  Eegensburg,  1903. 

’®Die  Heilige  Schrift,  189,  Leipzig,  1866, 

Die  Heilige  Schrift,  160,  New  York,  1894, 


7 


follow  the  Vulgate,  yet  their  translations  differ.  While  the  former 
has:  ^^Welohen  Grott  ziim  Versohnungs-Opfer  dnrch  den  Glanben 
an  sein  Bint  bestinunt  hat  the  latter  gives  just  the  opposite : 
“Welchen  Gott  dargestellt  hat  als  8ilhnopfer  durch  den  Glanben 
in  seinem  Blute 

This  short  survey  of  IXaaTgpLov  in  Eom.  iii,  25  is  evidence 
enough  to  show  that  translators  had  difficulty  with  the  w.'>rd. 
Apart  from  the  fact  that  it  demonstrates  the  urgent  need  of  a 
special  and  careful  investigation,  it  leaves  the  impression  that 
St.  Pauhs  concept  of  the  term  was  manifestly  more  comprehensive 
than  is  generally  believed.  Undoubtedly  every  translator  strove  to 
give  IXao-T^pLov  that  one  particular  content  which,  in  his  opinion, 
would  best  express  its  application  to  Christ.  Quite  a  variety  of 
readings  result,  and  we  find  expressed  the  ideas  of  expiation,  pro¬ 
pitiation,  reconciliation,  forgiveness,  mercy,  and  sacrifice.  It  needs 
no  proof  to  show  that  all  these  elements  may  have  reference  to 
Christ  in  His  sacrifice.  This  permits  the  assertion  that  this  single 
word  contains  more  than  one  element.  It  will  be  well,  then,  to 
bear  this  in  mind  when  dealing  with  the  history  of  the  interpre¬ 
tation  of  St.  PauTs  lXa(TT^piov,  which  will  be  taken  up  in  the  next 
chapter,  and  especially  when  making  the  literary  investigation. 


CHAPTER  II 


History  of  the  Interpretation  of  IAA5THPION  in  Rom.  hi,  25 

1.  IN  MODERN  EXEGESIS 

The  large  number  of  commentators  who  discuss  the  meaning  of 
IXao-T^piov  in  Rom.  iii^  25  makes  it  impossible  to  quote  them  all 
at  great  length.  Therefore,  in  order  to  describe  briefly  the  modern 
history  of  the  problem,  the  authors  have  been  grouped  around 
the  several,  general  views  proposed  as  possible  explanations.  Let 
it  be  added,  however,  that,  even  though  the  interpretations  may  be 
put  into  general  classes,  it  is  no  easy  matter  to  subdivide  them, 
because  the  various  theories  and  methods  of  explanation  are  often 
intermingled.  Doubtless  it  will  be  best  to  let  the  individual  authors 
speak  for  themselves;  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  that  only  will  be 
quoted  which  is  considered  necessary  to  convey  their  acceptation 
of  the  term. 

I.  The  0.  T.  Propitiatory  or  Mercy-Seat  the  Type;  Jesus 

Christ  the  Anti-Type* 

The  most  prominent  opinion  among  moderns  is  that  IXaaT^piov 
in  Rom.  iii^  25  must  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  0.  T.  usage. 
Forbes  justly  remarks  that  to  assign  to  the  term  any  other  meaning 
than  that  which  St.  Paul  knew  every  reader  of  the  0.  T.  must 
attach  to  it,  “  seems  almost  equivalent  to  saying  that  he  wrote  to 
be  misunderstood,  or  was  incompetent  to  select  a  fit  expression  to 
render  his  meaning  clear  and  unambiguous  The  majority  of 
modern  scholars  maintain,  therefore,  that  the  Pauline  term  is  an 
allusion  to  the  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  which  Hebrew  word 

the  LXX  rendered  by  IXacri^piov. 

The  rTn05,  as  it  is  described  in  Ex.  xxv^  17-23,  was  a  slab  of 

solid  gold,  distinct  from  the  ark  of  the  covenant.  It  was  2J  cubits 
long  and  cubits  wide  and  corresponded  exactly  with  the  meas¬ 
urements  of  the  ark  over  which  it  was  placed.  From  opposite  ends 

^  Comm,  on  Rom.,  166. 

8 


9 


of  the  propitiatory  ^  rose  a  pair  of  golden  cherubim.  Their  faces 
were  bent  downwards  in  the  direction  of  the  propitiatory,  while 
the  wings  with  which  each  was  furnished  met  overhead,  so  as  to 
cover  the  propitiatory.®  Under  their  extended  wings  Jahveh  had 
His  peculiar  dwelling  place.  On  the  day  of  Atonement  the  High 
Priest  sprinkled  the  propitiatory  seven  times  with  the  blood  of 
the  sin-oifering  as  an  act  of  expiation  and  propitiation  (Lev.  xvi, 
19).  St.  Paul  then,  these  authors  say,  in  his  Roman  epistle  desig¬ 
nates  Christ  as  the  antitype  of  the  0.  T.  IXaar^pLov  and  as  the 
reality  of  all  that  it  symbolized. 

A.  With  Reference  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Christ. 

1.  The  hlood-sprinhled  propitiatory  or  mercy-seat  typical  of 
Christ  hlood-sprinhled  in  His  Sacrifice. 

As  a  general  rule  modern  exegetes  regard  as  a  derivative 

of  the  Piel  form  ^90  which  means  to  expiate,  to  propitiate,  to 

atone  ’  and  “  is  the  technical  term  in  the  Mosaic  ritual,  for  the 
object  and  intent  of  sacrifice This  leads  some  moderns  to  see 
in  the  blood-sprinkled  propitiatory  on  the  Atonement  day  a  type 
of  the  bloody  sacrifice  of  Christ.  The  tertium  comparationis 
as  Philippi  ®  puts  it,  is  simply  this,  that  Christ,  sprinkled  with 
blood,  resembles  the  Kapporeth  sprinkled  with  blood  and  the 
Pauline  word  therefore  retains  its  historically  fixed  reference  to 
the  Kapporeth  as  the  means  of  expiation  Kar  According 

to  Belsham  ®  Christ  is  the  K.  T.  mercy-seat  sprinkled  and  con¬ 
secrated  by  his  own  blood,  as  that  of  old  was  by  the  blood  of  the 
appointed  victim”.  Comparison  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  to  the 

2  The  translation  “  propitiatory  ”  is  the  adoption  of  “  propitiatorium  ” 
of  the  Latin  versions,  while  the  term  “  mercy-seat  ”  came  through  the 
“  Gnadenstuhl  ”  of  Luther’s  translation  and  the  “  seat  of  mercy  ”  of  Tyn- 
dale.  Commentators  have  accepted  the  terms  propitiatory  or  mercy-seat 
and  use  the  two  indiscriminately  when  referring  to  the  O.  T.  ri'ts. 

®  The  question  concerning  the  detailed  construction  and  minor  purposes 
of  the  O.  T.  propitiatory  is  much  disputed.  It  is  irrelevant  to  our  investi¬ 
gation.  For  particulars  see  discussions  of  Tostatus,  Opera,  39-41;  Corn, 
a  Lapide,  Comm,  in  S.  S.,  I,  639^641 ;  Dibellius,  Die  Lade  Jahves,  38  ff. ; 
Orfali,  Area  Foederis,  29-31 ;  Salianus,  Epitome,  232  ff.,  and  Commentaries 
on  Ex.  XXV,  17. 

*  Lange,  Comm,  on  H.  Scrip.,  V,  132-133. 

*  Comm,  on  Rom.,  144-145. 

®  Epistles  of  Paul,  I,  76. 


10 


blood-sprinkled  propitiatory  suggests,  in  the  opinion  of  Briggs,^ 
‘‘^the  application  of  his  blood  ...  to  the  propitiatory  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  ritual  of  the  day  of  Atonement  ;  and  the  Messiah 
is  thus  the  blood-sprinkled  propitiatory  Priestley  ^  selects  the 
meaning  propitiatory  because  it  shows  Christ  in  His  sacrifice  as 
the  N.  T.  reality;  and,  as  the  0.  T.  propitiatory  was  sprinkled  with 
blood  once  a  year,  so  now  ‘^^the  apostle,  by  way  of  figure,  repre¬ 
sents  his  blood  as  sprinkled  upon  it’k  Zeller®  sees  in  Christ  the 
antitypical  propitiatory  der  besprengt  mit  dem  eigenen  Bint  .  .  . 
die  Siihne  wirklich  nnd  allgemein  leistet,  welche  das  A.  T.  vorge- 
bildet  hatte  According  to  Whitby  the  mercy-seat  in  the  Holy 
of  Holies  was  styled  IXacrr^piov,  because  it  was  the  place  where 
God  promised  to  be  propitious  ^k  Applying  the  term  to  Christ : 
as  those  under  the  0.  T.,  who  desired  to  have  God  propitious  to 
them,  were  to  come  with  the  blood  of  their  sin-ofiering  to  the 
propitiatory,  so  under  the  gospel  dispensation  they  must  expect 
to  find  God  propitious  to  them,  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  their 
mercy-seat ’k  Weidner^^  sees  in  Christ  as  our  High  Priest  and 
Sacrifice,  ^‘'sprinkled  with  His  own  blood,  .  .  .  that  which  the 
cover,  or  kapporeth,  or  ^  mercy-seat  ^  had  been  typically  ’k  In  the 
opinion  of  Plumer  St.  Paufis  IXaarT^piov  is  “  borrowed  from  the 
Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament  and,  as  the  Israelites 
obtained  pardon  and  acceptance  as  public  worshipers  by  the  sprink¬ 
ling  of  blood  on  the  mercy-seat,  so  eternal  life  is  dispensed  from 
Christ  ^k  ScofiekP^  writes  that  in  fulfilment  of  the  0.  T.  type 

Christ  is  Himself  the  hilasmos,  that  which  propitiates,’  and 
the  hilasterion,  ^  the  place  of  propitiation  ’ — the  mercy-seat  sprink¬ 
led  with  His  own  blood  ’k  Tholuck  argues  that  as  Christ  is 
represented  in  the  N.  T.  both  as  High  Priest  and  as  victim,  so 
konnte  auch  im  A.  B.  nicht  nur  das  dargebrachte  Opfer  als  Bild 
Christi  betrachtet  werden,  sondern  auch  der  mit  dem  versohnenden 
Blute  besprengte  Gnadenstuhl  ’k  That  Christ  in  His  own  blood 
became  the  H.  T.  reality  of  the  0.  T.  blood-sprinkled  propitiatory 
is  also  the  view  of  Poolfi'"^  Kneelandd®  and  Gaebelein.’^ 

■^Messias  of  the  Apostles,  147-148. 

®  Notes  on  Scripture,  IV.  275. 

®  Bibl.  Handworterbuch,  248. 

Comm,  on  0.  and  N.  T.,  IV,  543-544. 

“Bibl.  Theology  of  N.  T.,  IT,  134. 

Comm,  on  Bom.,  132-133.  ^'^Annotations  upon  the  Bible,  III,  480. 

'^^N.  T.  and  Psalms,  203.  N.  T.  in  Greek  and  English,  IT,  110. 

Brief  an  d.  Bbm.,  123.  Ep.  to  the  Rom.,  24. 


11 


2.  The  Propitiatory  as  Mediwn  of  Mercy,  Pardon,  and  Forgive¬ 
ness,  a  Type  of  Christ. 

On  the  Atonement  day  the  High  Priest  sprinkled  the  propi¬ 
tiatory  with  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering  to  obtain  forgiveness  and 
pardon  for  sins  and  the  mercy  of  God.  Hence  some  commentators 
emphasize  the  rendition  of  the  Pauline  word  as  mercy-seat,  to 
show  that  Christ  through  Plis  Sacrifice  procured  for  mankind  for¬ 
giveness  and  pardon  for  sins  and  the  mercy  of  God.  These  scholars 
find  the  relation  between  the  0.  T.  mercy-seat  and  Christ  not  so 
much  in  the  sacrifice  itself^  as  in  the  effects  produced  by  that 
sacrifice. 

Thus  Sheldon  thinks  that  reference  to  the  terminology  of  the 
LXX  version  and  to  patristic  interpretation  would  dictate  a  pre¬ 
ference  for  the  expression  ^  mercy-seat  ^  ’k  If  the  0.  T.  mercy-seat 
was  only  a  type,  as  Lechner  believes,  so  zeigt  bier  der  Apostel, 
dass  Christus  der  wahre  Gnadenstuhl  sei,  durch  welchen  Allen 
vollkommene  Vergebung  zu  Theil  werde  The  IXaaTrjptov  in  the 
Holy  of  Plolies,  to  speak  with  Olshausen,^'’  represented  itself  to  the 
Israelites  ^^as  the  place  from  which  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins 
proceeded  And  now  Christ  as  the  X.  T.  reality  is  solemnly  pre¬ 
sented  in  His  sacrifice  to  all  peoples  in  order  that  they  may 
receive  forgiveness  of  sins  through  his  blood ’k  John  Brown 
writes  that  the  Pauline  term  designates  Christ  as  the  true  mercy- 
seat,  in  whom  we  may  see  God  fully  reconciled  to  us  ’k  In  much 
the  same  way  Trollope,^^  Bosanquet,^^  and  Storrer  refer  the 
Pauline  word  to  Christ  as  the  true  mercy-seat.  According  to 
Otto  the  typical  mercy-seat  stood  behind  the  veil  within  the 
Holy  of  Holies ;  its  antitype,  however,  der  wahre  Gnadenstuhl 
ist  durch  Zerreissung  des  Yorhanges  seines  Fleisches  vor  Augen 
gestellt 

3.  The  Propitiatory  as  Manifestation  of  the  Divine  Presence,  a 
type  of  Christ. 

Besides  being  the  medium  of  forgiveness,  pardon,  and  mercy  the 
propitiatory  served  also  as  the  centre  of  the  divine  presence  and 
manifestation  (Ex.  xxv,  22;  Lev.  xvi,  2).  Accordingly  some 


^  N.  T.  Theology,  230. 

III.  Sclirift  (1.  N.  T,,  021. 
■■‘"Comm,  on  N.  T.,  HI,  540. 
*n^]xpositioii  of  Rom.,  113. 


-‘‘Analecta  TheoL,  II,  330. 
Paraphrase  on  Rom.,  43. 
Rrief  an  (1.  ROm.,  23. 

■■“^  Rrief  an  d.  Rlim.,  74. 


12 


authors  find  in  the  Pauline  IXaar^piov  a  similar  representation 
withoufi  however,  excluding  the  notion  of  sacrifice. 

Concerning  the  propitiatory  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  Eitschl  says 
it  signified  das  hochste  Symbol  gottlicher  Gegenwart  in  der 
Israelitischen  Gemeinde  Paulus  konnte  nun  die  Qualitat 

Jesu  mit  dem  Ausdrucke  hezeichnen  ”,  he  continues,  der  jeden 
Israeliten  an  die  Gnadengegenwart  Gottes  er inner te  For 

Eitschl  then  IXacjT^piov  denotes  properly  a  divine  representation. 
Similarly  Bleihtreu:  ‘^^^Dort  war  er  mit  seiner  Herrlichkeit  und 
Gnadenmacht  unter  Israel  gegenwartig  But  the  0.  T. 

IXaarrjpLov  also  Served  another  purpose :  Als  Slihnort  ist  die 

Kapporeth  blutbesprengt  und  in  der  gleichen  Eigensohaft  des 
Slihnortes  wird  sie  dann  weiter  auch  das,  wozu  sie  von  Gott  in 
Aussicht  genommen  ist,  namlich  die  Statte  seiner  Gegenwart 
The  Pauline  term  in  its  application  to  Christ,  according  to 
Bleihtreu,  has  then  the  following  signification :  Hass  fiir  die 

Gemeinde  des  Heuen  Testamentes  Christus  Jesus  der  Ort  sei,  da 
in  entsprechender  Weise  Gottes  gnadenvolle  Herrlichkeit  strahlt, 
ist  .  .  .  ein  ebenso  wahrer  als  einfacher  Gedanke”.^®  From  these 
quotations  it  is  seen  that  Bleihtreu  does  not  find  in  lXa<TT^pLov  the 
elements  of  expiation  or  propitiation.  These  are  added  durch 
die  beigefugten  Worte,  iv  tm  avrov  mpLarL  ”  which,  he  adds,  clearly 
refer  to  a  sacrifice.  Therefore  he  states  that  IXadr^piov  ^H^eines- 
falls  eine  Siihne  oder  ein  Suhnopfer  hezeichnen  muss  ”,  hut  dass 
in  dem  Ausdrucke  nothwendigerweise  eine  Vertretung  Gottes  uns 
gegenuher  liegt  Like  Eitschl,  Bleihtreu  thinks  that  IXacrr^pLov 
primarily  means  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  presence. 

^IXaar^pLov,  according  to  Vaughan,^®  is  properly  the  neuter  of  the 
adjective  and  means  propitiatory  or  expiatory  ”.  And  the  0.  T. 
type,  when  sprinkled  with  blood,  became  the  symbolic  centre  of 
the  personal  hope  of  mercy,  as  well  as  the  Divine  Presence  in 
Israel  ” ;  the  application  of  the  word  to  Christ  “  constitutes  Him 
as  it  were  the  mercy-seat  of  the  new  temple  in  which  God  dwells 
with  redeemed  man  ”.  Gifford,^^  interpreting  the  Pauline  term  as 
mercy-seat  ”,  explains  that  as  the  0.  T.  IXaar^piov  ‘^‘^was  the  cen- 

Rechtfertigung  und  Versohnung,  II,  168. 

^^Op.  cit.,  170. 

2«StKr  (1883),  559. 

Op.  cit.,  561.  Op.  cit.,  560. 

Op.  cit.,  559.  ^'^Ep.  to  the  Rom.,  73-74. 

Ibid.  Comm,  on  Rom.,  96. 


13 


tral  point  of  the  divine  presence  and  manifestation,  the  place  of 
meeting  and  communion,  between  God  and  the  representative  of 
his  people  ”,  so  now  in  Christ  the  full  manifestation  of  God  to 
man  is  made  Livermore  too  writes  that  Christ  is  now  the 
mercy-seat,  the  bright  and  holy  place  of  the  Divine  presence  and 
glory  shining  in  his  face  The  propitiatory  in  the  0.  T.,  Paige 
opines,  ^^was  the  place  where  the  divine  presence  was  specially 
manifested,  and  where  the  divine  goodness  was  proclaimed  And 
in  applying  the  term  to  Christ  St.  Paul  designates  Him  as  the 
IST.  T.  mercy-seat  because  he  was  the  brightness  of  his  Father’s 
glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person  (Hehr.  i,  3),  thus 
manifesting  the  divine  presence 

4.  The  Propitiatory  as  Medium  of  Communication  and  Meeting 
with  God,  a  Type  of  Christ. 

We  read  in  Num.  vii,  89  that  Moses  communicated  with  Jahveh 
through  the  medium  of  the  propitiatory.  Wherefore  some  exegetes 
see  in  St.  Paul’s  use  of  IXaaTrjpiov  a  similar  signification. 

The  0.  T.  mercy-seat,  Vincent  remarks,  was  the  meeting- 
place  of  God  and  man  ” ;  the  place  of  mediation  and  manifesta¬ 
tion  ”.  In  the  H.  T.,  through  Jesus  Christ,  ^^the  antitype  of  the 
mercy-seat,  the  Mediator,  man  has  access  to  the  Father  (Eph.  ii, 
18)”.  And  Christ  as  antitype  ^^is  now  brought  out  where  all  can 
draw  nigh  and  experience  its  reconciling  power  ”.  When  Christ 
is  compared  to  the  mercy-seat  of  the  0.  T.,  the  idea  naturally 
conveyed  to  the  Jewish  mind  would  be  ^Hbat  through  him  God 
meets  with  us,  forgiving  our  sins,  and  comimuning  with  us  ” ;  in 
other  words,  St.  Paul  meant  to  say  that  God  has  himself  set 
forth  this  victim,  Jesus,  as  a  mercy-seat,  where  he  will  meet  you” 
(J.  Clarke).^®  What  in  the  Jewish  ritual  the  bloody  sacrifices 
were,  that  in  Paul’s  apprehension  the  life,  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ  are  in  Christianity”.  How  in  the  Hebrew  system  there 
was  a  Mercy-Seat  where  God  met  humanity  ” ;  in  the  Christian 
system  God  hath  set  forth  before  all  the  people  J esus  Christ  his 
Son,  as  a  Mercy-Seat”  ( Abbot 

Ep.  to  the  Rom.,  114. 

Comm,  on  N.  T.,  IV,  82. 

Word  Studies,  III,  46-47. 

^  Ideas  of  Paul,  308. 

“'Ep.  to  the  Rom.,  121. 


14 


5.  The  Propitiatory  as  a  Cover  of  expiation-propitiation,  a  Type 
of  Christ. 

Some  authors,  basing  their  arguments  upon  Ex.  xxv,  20,  hold 
that  the  served  as  the  immediate  cover  for  the  ark  of  the 

covenant.^®  They  derive  ri“105  from  the  Kal  form  1DD  whose 

primary  root  meaning,^^  they  say,  is  ^  to  cover  ’  and,  in  combina¬ 
tion  with  the  sacrificial  ritual  of  the  Atonement  day,  they  conclude 
for  the  meaning  of  cover  of  expiation  or  propitiation.  In  Rom. 
iii^  25  IXao-rypiov  would  then  refer  to  Christ  as  the  H.  T.  expiatory 
or  propitiatory  cover. 

Hence  Cremer  observes  that  the  0.  T.  had  as  object 

die  siihnende  Bedeckung  der  Bundeslade  mit  dem  Gesetze  darin 
What  St.  Paul  wishes  to  say  in  Rom.  iii^  25  is  that  God  gave 
Christ  to  us  zur  siihnenden  Bedeckung  which  evidently  means 
that  Christ  in  His  sacrifice  covered  the  sins  of  man  before  God. 
Weber  is  of  opinion  that  the  n"100  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  served 

“  als  ein  Siihngerathe  ’’  and  it  is  such  insof ern  sie  eben  das 
Gesetz,  das  wider  Israel  spricht,  vor  Jehova  zudeckt  St.  Paul, 
he  goes  on  to  say,  compares  Christ  to  this  instrument  of  atonement, 
and  Christ  is  our  IXaaryjpLov  ev  rw  avTov  alpiaTL,  und  diese  Wer- 
bindung  erinnert  an  das  gesetzliche  Siihnung  der  Siinde  durch 
das  blutige  Opf er  ’b  Seeberg  assures  us  that  the  is  called 

l\aaTT]piov  weil  er  der  Deckung  dessen  dient,  angesichts  dessen 
Gott  dem  siindigen  Volk  hatte  ziirnen  miissen’’,  i.  e.,  the  ark  con¬ 
taining  the  law,  for  durch  Deckung  des  Gesetzes  ist  auch  die 

^‘’Dillman,  Ex.  und  Lev.,  313,  Nowack,  Lehrbiich  d.  hebr.  Archaologie, 
II,  60  and  others  say  the  ark  had  a  cover  of  its  own  and  that  the  n ”^2 
was  a  kind  of  sheltering  roof  ( Schutzdach) . 

The  primary  root  meaning  of  is  disputed.  Lexicons  usually  give 

‘to  cover,  to  overlay’;  cf.  Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  II,  708,  Kbnig,  Lehrge- 
baude  d.  hebr.  Sprache,  II,  201  and  ExpT  (1911),  378-380,  where  he  de¬ 
fends  this  interpretation.  On  the  other  hand,  Langdon,  ExpT  (1911),  320- 
325,  and  others,  say  it  means  ‘  to  remove,  to  wipe  away.’  Driver,  ERE,  V, 
654,  2,  says  the  meaning  is  still  uncertain;  F.  Brown,  Hebrew-English 
Lexicon,  497,  writes  that  the  original  meaning  is  doubtful,  but  that  it 
most  probably  is  to  cover. 

42  Worterbuch  d.  neut.  Gracitat,  509-510. 

Vom  Zorne  Gottes,  273-274. 

Der  Tod  Christi,  184-185. 


15 


Siinde  zugedeckt^^  St.  Paul,  in  Eom.  iii,  25,  has  in  mind  the 
circumstances  of  eine  Deckung  which  apparently  means  that 
by  His  sacrifice  Christ  covered  the  sins  of  mankind. 

B.  ^Yitllout  Reference  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Christ. 

Mention  must  be  made  of  some  few  authors  who  interpret  the 
Pauline  IXaaTrjpiov  as  designating  Christ  the  antitype  of  the  0.  T. 
type,  but  who  fail  to  find  in  the  term  any  direct  or  indirect  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ. 

Thus  Jacobs^®  thinks  that  when  St.  Paul  employs  the  word 
IXaaTrjpiov,  he  means  to  say  that  ^Hn  Christ  all  that  is  fulfilled 
which  the  Mercy  Seat  had  foreshadowed  ’k  The  term  has  no  refer¬ 
ence  to  sacrifice  but  has  inherent  in  it  the  idea  of  the  covering 
of  sins  made  at  the  mercy- seat.  In  Edm.  iii,  25  Christ  as  the 
fulfilment  must,  then,  be  styled  the  H.  T.  cover  for  sin.  To  Agus 
the  word  represents  Christ  protecting  and  directing  His  church. 
As  the  propitiatory  was  placed  over  the  ark  as  a  protection  and 
as  from  there  Jahveh  spoke  to  His  people  and  directed  them,  sic 
Christus  est  super  Ecclesiam,  et  ipsam  protegit  et  Deum  nobis 
propitium  reddit  et  Ecclesiam  totam  instituit  et  gubernat 
Macknight  and  Bree  see  in  the  Pauline  word,  Christ  the  anti¬ 
type  of  the  0.  T.  mercy-seat  “  set  forth  by  God  for  receiving  the 
worship  of  men  and  dispensing  pardon  to  them  Taylor  inter¬ 
prets  it  as  designating  Christ,  the  true  mercy-seat,  because  He  is 
the  Foundation  .  .  .  upon  which  we  present  all  our  Services  and 
Devotions  to  him,  in  Hopes  of  Pardon  and  Acceptance  ’k 

According  to  Drummond  the  Pauline  term  is  best  explained 
^Svhen  we  understand  that  Christ  stands  to  the  Christian  in  the 
same  relation  as  the  mercy-seat  to  the  ancient  Hebrew  ’k  The 
Hebrev/s  regarded  the  mercy-seat  as  the  place  where  God  made 
Himself  known  to  Moses,  and  communed  with  him  ’’  and  in  this 
sense  also  the  figure  would  be  applicable  to  Christ ’k  Hobart'’^ 
discards  all  viev/s  that  express  a  relation  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
and  prefers  propitiation  to  mean  the  meeting-place  for  men  and 
God^k  Hewcome would  have  it  represent  Olirist  ^Gas  the  mes- 

Annotations  on  Rom,,  70-71.  Ep.  to  tho  Rom.,  2S1. 

Ep.  ad  P^om.,  192.  “  Expositions  in  Rom.,  43. 

^^Apost.  Epistles,  I,  72.  The  New  Testament,  349. 

Study  of  H.  Scripture,  11,  117. 

Paraphrase  on  Rom.,  269. 


16 


senger  of  divine  mercy,  and  the  medium  of  divine  communications 
to  mankind 

II.  lAA^THPION :  Christ  the  Expiator-Propitiator 

A  second  group  of  commentators  contend  that  IXao-Ti^pLov  in  Eom. 
iii^  25  means  that  Christ  in  His  sacrifice  became  the  expiator  or 
propitiator  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  Few  are  the  modern  exegetes 
who  venture  this  opinion. 

Eosenmuller  arrives  at  this  conclusion  by  a  comparative  study 
of  nouns  ending  in  {t)tjplov  and  tracing  their  derivation  to  verbs. 
Such  nouns  generally  indicate  id  quod  habet  vim  aliquid  effici- 
endi,  ut  awrypLov — vim  servandi  He  concludes  that  the  Pauline 
term  means  expiatorem,  eum  qui  habet  vim  expiandi  ’k  Bret- 
schneider  renders  IXacTr'qpiov  vim  expiandi  habens  ;  applying 
this  to  Eom.  iii,  25  he  sees  in  it  Christ  the  expiationis  auctor 
Holden  explains  it  as  meaning  a  propitiator/’  as  does  Eohin- 
son  who,  in  reference  to  Eom.  iii,  25,  contends  that  it  means 

a  propitiator,  one  who  makes  propitiation 

III.  lAA^THPION :  The  Expiatory-Propitiatory  Sacrifice 

OF  Christ 

Another  group  of  modern  scholars  propose  what  they  believe  to 
be  a  more  plausible  explanation,  which  has  in  the  H.  T.,  they 
maintain,  the  analogy  of  doctrine  more  decidedly  in  its  favor.®'^ 
They  all  agree  that  IXaa-TypLov  in  Eom.  iii,  25  has  some  relation 
to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  yet  they  are  at  a  loss  as  to  whether  the 
meaning  is  expiatory  or  propitiatory  or  both,  and  they  arrive  at 
their  conclusions  by  various  methods  of  investigation. 

1.  Some  seek  the  solution  of  the  problem  in  the  symbolical 
sacrifices  of  the  O.T.  which  were  so  many  types  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ.  MacGarvey-Pendleton  state  St.  Paul  “makes  it  ap¬ 
parent  that  the  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament  were  types  ”,  because 
they  foreshadowed  “  Christ,  the  real  propitiatory  sacrifice  ”. 
Comely  thinks  of  “  vel  piaculum  in  genere  vel  rectius  sacrifi- 

Scholia  in  N.  T.,  Ill,  581. 

Lexicon  Graeco-Lat.  N.  T.,  I,  586. 

Christian  Expositor,  II,  355. 

Greek-Eng.  Lexicon  of  N.  T.,  387. 

Cf.  Jn.  I,  29;  Eph.  V,  2;  Hebr.  IX,  24;  I  Peter  I,  19  and  II,  24. 

Thess.,  Cor.,  Gal.,  and  Eom.,  321. 

Comm,  ad  Eom.,  190. 


17 


cium  piaculare  sen  propitiatorinm  and  cites  as  authority  St. 
John  Chrysostom  who,  according  to  him,  contrasts  Christ’s  sacri¬ 
fice  to  the  sacrificiis  propitiatoriis  veteris  oeconomiae  Gnyse 
and  Schaff  similarly  appeal  to  the  0.  T.  sacrificial  types  in  sup¬ 
porting  propitiatory  sacrifice 

2.  Others  deduce  the  meaning  expiatory-propitiatory  sacrifice 
by  comparing  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  to  the  sacrificial  Mood 
sprinkled  on  the  propitiatory.  Funke  denies  that  sin  was  expiated 
by  the  sprinkling  of  blood  on  the  propitiatory  but  “  nur  einstweilen 
bis  auf  das  vollkommene  Siihnopfer,  welches  ist  Christus,  bedeckt 
wurde  Therefore  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  sin  was  covered 
not  only  for  a  time,  sondern  wirklich  fiir  immer  bedeckt 
He  concludes  that  in  Edm.  iii,  25  IXaarrjpiov  means  das  wahre 
Siihnopfer  Kruger  has  Siihnopfer,  wobei  vielfach  an  das 
Opfer  des  Yersohnungstages  gedacht  wird  und  an  die  Kapporeth”. 
Henry,®®  who  also  refers  to  Christ  as  the  antitype  of  the  0.  T. 
propitiatory,  selects  the  meaning  propitiatory  sacrifice 

3.  Then  there  are  commentators  who  insist  quite  as  strongly 
that  the  context  in  Rom.  iii,  25  demands  the  rendition  of  expiatory- 
propitiatory  sacrifice.  It  is  certain,  says  Riickert,®’’  dass  Paulus 
Christum  als  denjenigen  denke,  durch  welchen  die  Siihnung  der 
menschlichen  Siinde  zu  Stande  komme  ”.  And  it  is  probable  dass 
er  ihn  als  Solchen  unter  dem  Bilde  eines  Suhnopfers  darstellen 
wolle  ”,  ’for  which  interpretation  Iv  rw  o-vtov  aifxari  zu  sprechen 
scheint  ”.  Beck,®®  who  holds  that  IXaarrjpiov  in  general  means 

etwas  was  Siihn-Kraft  hat  oder  zur  Siihnung  dient  ”,  has  this  to 
say  of  the  Pauline  use  of  the  term :  Kamentlich  weisst  unser 
ganzer  Context,  indem  darin  a7roXvTpd)(7€(D<;  (v.  24),  at/xa,  Trapecn^  tmv 
TTpoyeyovoTiov  apuapTyp^droiv  zur  Sprache  kommt,  auf  den  Begriff  eines 
Siihnenden  Opfers”.  Baur,®®  Reischl,^®  Gurlitt,'^^  and  Jiilicher 
decide  for  the  meaning  “  Siihnopfer  ”  because  of  the  word 
aTToXvTpwcTL^  iu  V.  24,  which  shows,  they  say,  that  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  was  primarily  one  of  expiation.  Kahnis,'^®  commenting  on 
Rom.  Ill,  25,  explains  that  Christ’s  sacrifice  delivered  men von 


Practical  Expositor,  III,  S81. 
Popular  Comm,  on  N.  T.,  Ill,  46. 
®^StKr  (1842),  314. 

Op.  cit.,  315. 

®*  Op.  cit.,  320. 

®®  Rechtfertigung  n.  R()m.,  204. 

®"  Exposition  of  0.  and  N.  T.,  IX,  25. 


Brief  an  d.  Riim.,  I,  173. 

®^  Brief  an  d.  Rom.,  307-308. 

®®  Paulus,  539. 

’®H1.  Schrift  d.  X.  T.,  611. 
'^StKr  (1840),  977. 

"“Schriften  d.  X".  T.,  II,  239. 
Lutherisclie  Dogmatik,  I,  584. 


2 


18 


cler  Knechtscliaft  der  Slinde  {a7ro\vrp(oai) ,  zerreisst  den  Schnldbrief 
der  gegen  sie  zeugte  (Kol.  2,  14),  bedeckt  die  Gl^ott  iind  Menscben 
trennende  Sbnde  als  Snbnopfer  {l\a<jTi]pLov)”.  David  Brown/^ 
Connybeare-Howson/^  Scbedd/®  and  Stuart  ‘  ^  consider  tbe  context 
of  Eom.  iii^  25,  especially  tbe  pbrase  eV  rw  avrov  at putn,  sufficient 
evidence  for  tbe  meaning  propitiatory  sacrifice  According  to 
Weinel/®  if  we  try  to  imagine  here  “a  concrete  instance  of  the 
abstract  noun  ^  propitiation  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  idea  of 
sacrifice  is  tbe  most  natural  ’b  Therefore  he  stands  for  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  propitiatory  sacrifice  as  also  does  Eashdall  who  discusses 
the  term  at  some  length. 

Morison  concludes  that  iXaar^ptov  was  employed  by  St.  Paul  as 
an  adjective  ^A’etaining  its  primary  adjectival  import  and  force 
with  the  meaning  propitiatory  ^b^®  He  admits  that  in  sub¬ 
stance  at  least  propitiatory  sacrifice  is  the  correct  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  Apostle’s  expression  ”,  because  if  Jesus  was  ^  pro¬ 
pitiatory  ’  at  all,  he  was  propitiatory  as  a  sacrifice  ’b^^  That  such 
an  idea  was  present  to  the  Apostle’s  mind  is  put  beyond  all 
reasonable  question  by  the  very  next  words,  ^through  faith  in  his 
blood  ’  Although  Sanday-Headlam  say  that  IXafTr^^piov  as  sub¬ 
stantive  strictly  means  place  or  vehicle  of  propitiation  they 
prefer  to  take  it  in  Eom.  iii,  25  ^^as  adj.  accus.  masc.  added  as 
predicate  to  That  they  admit  the  presence  of  the  element 

of  sacrifice  in  the  term,  is  evident  from  the  following :  It  is 

impossible  to  get  rid  from  this  passage  of  the  double  idea  (1)  of 
a  sacrifice;  (2)  of  a  sacrifice  which  is  propitiatory.  In  any  case 
the  phrase  h  tm  avrov  atptarL  carries  with  it  the  idea  of  sacrificial 
Ifioodshedding  Whatever  sense  we  assign  to  IXacrr^piov,  “  the 
fundamental  idea  which  underlies  the  word  must  be  that  of  pro¬ 
pitiation  This  is  also  the  opinion  of  Knight ;  the  term 
should  simply  be  rendered  propitiatory,  and  regarded  as  quali¬ 
fying  or  ”.  So  also  Denney  who  takes  the  word  as  predicate  to 


Ep.  to  the  Eom.,  36. 

Life  and  Ep.  of  Paul,  II,  167. 


Op.  cit.,  295. 
Op.  cit.,  87. 
Op.  cit.,  88. 
Op.  cit.,  91. 

66 


Ibid. 


Comm,  on  Eom.,  81. 

Comm,  on  Eom.,  152-153. 

St.  Paul,  307. 

’^‘’Atonement  in  Christ.  Theology,  131-132. 

Exposition  of  the  III  chapter  of  Eom.,  303. 

Op.  cit.,  304.  Comm,  on  Eom.,  179. 

Expositor’s  Gr.  Test.,  II,  611. 


19 


ov,  'meaning  that  Christ  is  conceived  with  propitiatory  power,  in 
virtue  of  His  death 

4.  Several  exegetes  arrive  at  the  meaning  expiatory-propitiatory 
sacrifice  comparing  IXacTT^piov  Avith  analogous  ivords  ending  in 
{T)gpiov.  Meyer  starts  out  by  saying  that  in  general  terminology 
it  means  expiatoriiim  ohne  dass  im  Worte  selhst  schon  die 
nahere  Sinnhestimmnng  gegehen  ist’h  Then,  in  the  light  of 
such  AVOrds  as  KaOaprgpiov,  (JMTijpLov,  evyapiGTiqpiov,  yapiarr^piov,  etc., 
which  are  found  in  the  classics,  he  interprets  the  Pauline  Avord  as 

Siihnopfer  Avith  the  remark  that  the  phrase  in  His  blood 
renders  die  Vorstellung  Ann  einem  siihnenden  Opfer  klar  genug  ’k 
Bisping  gives  the  adjective  the  meaning  siihnend,  versdhnend 
He  then  cites  KaOdpcriov  and  xapto-rT^ptoi'  as  proof  for  his  contention 
that  the  substantive  in  Eom.  iii,  25  means  Siihnopfer  ;  this 
interpretation  passt  .  .  .  am  schdnsten  zu  dem  TrpoiOero  und  dem 
ev  Tw  avrov  at  pun:  als  ein  hlutiges  Siihnopfer  hat  Cott  Christum 
olfentlich  dargestellt  ^k  Thayer  defines  the  adjective  thus : 

relating  to  appeasing  or  expiating,  having  placating  or  expia¬ 
tory  force,  expiatory ’k  Quoting  the  same  analogies  as  Meyer  he 
translates  the  Pauline  substantiAn  as  ‘^11  expiatory  sacrifice;  a 
piaciilar  victim  ^k  DeWette  and  Hodge  also  appeal  to  similar 
analogies  taken  from  profane  Greek,  hut  while  the  former  selects 
the  translation  Siihnopfer  the  latter  chooses  propitiatory 
sacrifice  ’k 

5.  Within  the  category  of  expiatory-propitiatory  sacrifice  must 

be  placed  the  interpretation  of  some  who  would  render  the  Pauline 
term  as  expiatory-propitiatory  offering.  Thus  Lightfoot  thinks 
that  lXa(jT7)pLov  must  be  interpreted  as  a  propitiatory  offering 
and  quotes  as  confirmation  Sta^ar^ptov,  viKgTr^piov,  and  the  parallels 
mentioned  by  Meyer  and  others.  Similarly  Gray,^®  Winer,®® 
Stifler,®^  and  Alford®®  explain  the  AA^ord  as  meaning  ^^propitiatory 
offering  and  Cowles  ®®  understands  it  as  a  propitiatory  offering 
of  a  sacrificial  nature  ’k  On  the  other  hand  Moule  has  a  price 
of  expiation  ^®®  and  an  expiatory  offering  ’k^®^  Ripley  ^®“ 

Brief  an  d.  Tldm.,  141.  ‘’“Biblical  Museum,  II,  23. 

^  Brief  an  d.  Rom,,  141-142.  ‘’"Grammar  of  N.  T.,  Diction,  108. 

‘’^  Greek-Eng.  Lexicon  of  N.  T,,  301.  Ep.  to  the  Rom.,  GO. 

‘“Brief  an  d.  Horn.,  45.  Greek  Test.,  II,  343. 

‘’"Comm,  on  Rom.,  83.  ‘’‘’Longer  Ep.  of  Paul,  37. 

Rotes  on  Ep.  of  Paul,  271. 

^‘’"Ep.  to  tho  Rom.  (Expositor’s  Bible),  03. 

Ep.  to  the  Rom.  (Cambridge  Bible),  85.  Ep,  to  the  Rom.,  30. 


20 


paraphrases  the  term  as  a  propitiatory  offering,  an  expiatory 
victim^’  and  Brnston/®^  in  reference  to  Eom.  in,  25,  holds  that  it 
does  not  signify  always  a  propitiatory  victim,  but  rather  ^^nne 
offrande  (avdOrjjjLa)  propitiatoire  on  expiatoire,  offerte  a  la 
Divinite  Godwin  renders  the  word  mercy-offering  ’’  and 
Chalmers  thinks  it  rather  signifies  the  offering  itself,  than 
the  place  in  which  the  offering  was  sprinkled  Platt  says 
the  most  natural  and  the  only  meaning  suitable  to  the  con¬ 
text  is  ‘‘  a  propitiatory  offering — ^a  means  of  rendering  God  con¬ 
sistently  favorable  towards  sinful  men  and  the  means  of  reconcilia¬ 
tion  between  God  and  man^k 

6.  Finally  there  are  those  who  designate  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
as  expiatory-propitiatory,  in  which  case  Christ  Himself  as  IXaarrjpiov 
may  be  styled  an  expiatory-propitiatory  victim.  So  Beelen^®^ 
believes  that  it  signifies  victimam  piacularem  ”  and  the  same 
interpretation  is  given  by  Wahl  and  Zorrelld*^^  For  Bernardinus 
a  Piconio  the  word  describes  Christ  as  a  victima  propitians  ; 
so  also  MacEvillyd^^  Wordsworth argues  for  ‘^Sin-Offering, 
or  Propitiafory  Victim  Schleusner  for  “  Victima  expiatoria  ” 
and  Grimm  for  “  sacrificium  expiatorium,  victima  piacularis  ’k 

IV.  IAA;STHPI0N  :  Expiation'-Propittation 

A  few  exegetes  decide  for  the  abstract  meaning  expiation  or 
propitiation.  According  to  Schaefer  the  adjective  signifies 
“  versohnend  oder  siihnend  ^k  After  examining  other  proposed 
interpretations  for  the  substantive  in  Eom.  iii,  25  he  concludes 
as  follows :  “  Darum  erscheint  jene  Erklarung  als  die  vorziig- 
lichere,  die  mit  der  Vulgata  allgemein  an  ‘  Siihne  oder  Sohnung ' 
.  .  .  denkt^k  Jowett^^®,  maintaining  that  the  term  is  to  be  ex¬ 
plained  like  (T0)T7]pLov  in  Ex.  xx,  24,  translates  it  “  propitiation 
and  this  is  also  the  meaning  assigned  to  the  word  by  Wardlaw.^^’’ 
Miller  widens  the  idea  contained  in  the  word  to  “  anv  certain 


^«^ZntlW  (1906),  77. 

Ep.  to  the  Rom.,  90. 

Lectures  on  Rom.,  59. 

DAC,  II,  283,  art.  Propitiation. 
Comm,  in  Rom.,  59. 

Clavis  N.  T.,  I,  238. 
a/)9  Lexicon  Graec.,  262. 

Ep.  Pauli  Expositio,  I,  38. 


Exposition  of  Ep.  of  Paul,  I,  29. 

T.  in  Greek,  217. 

Lexicon  Graeco-Lat.  in  IST.  T.,  I,  850. 
Lexicon  Graeco-Lat.  in  Is .  T.,  205. 
Brief  an  d.  Rom.,  136-137. 

Ep.  of  Paul,  II,  134. 

Two  Essays,  152. 

Comm,  on  Rom.,  119. 


21 


something  that  makes  clement,  or  secures  ^  propitiation  ’  To 
believe  Bushnell,^^”  St.  Paul,  in  Eom.  iii^  25,  emphasizes  the  fact 
that  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  only  propitiatory  and  not  expiatory. 
His  argument  is :  The  Apostle  has  propitiation  through  faith 
in  his  blood  and  not  propitiation  through  his  blood  ’h  Hence : 

no  propitiation  therefore  reaches  the  mark,  that  does  not,  on  its 
way,  reconcile,  or  bring  into  faith,  the  subject  for  v/hom  it  is 
made  By  such  an  arrangement  of  words  the  Apostle  takes 
away  any  possibility  of  the  meaning  of  expiation;  he  admits,  how¬ 
ever,  that  the  word  is  commonly  used  by  pagan  writers  in  a  way 
that  implies  expiation 

V.  IAA:§THPI0N  :  A  Means-Memoeial  of  Expiation"- 

Propitiatiox 

There  is  finally  a  group  of  more  recent  commentators  who  hold 
the  view  that  IXuar^pLov  expresses  either  the  very  general  meaning 
of  a  means  of  expiation  or  propitiation  or,  if  a  special  and  definite 
interpretation  should  be  offered,  a  memorial  or  monument  of  ex¬ 
piation  or  propitiation.  These  authors  conclude  that  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  was  the  means  of  expiation  or  propitiation,  or  His  sacri¬ 
fice  became  as  a  memorial  of  expiation  or  propitiation. 

1.  Foremost  in  this  class  is  Heissmann.  In  an  interesting 
article  he  investigates  and  discusses  the  use  and  meaning  of  the 
adjective  not  only  from  a  biblical  point  of  view  but  also  from  that 
of  later  profane  Greek  and  inscriptions.  He  concludes  that  the 
adjective  can  have  a  twofold  signification,  namely:  was  zur 

Gnadigstimmung  oder  Versohnung  (namlich  der  Gottheit  oder 
eines  Menschen)  in  Beziehung  steht  oder  dient,  versohnend,  pro¬ 
pitiator  ins,  placatorius ;  2)  was  zur  Siihnung  (namlich  der  Siinde) 
in  Beziehung  steht  oder  dient,  siihnend,  expiatorius  In  every 

individual  case,  he  says,  the  context  is  the  deciding  factor  in  de¬ 
termining  whether  the  meaning  is  expiatory  ”  or  “  propitiatory 
Coming  then  to  the  substantive  in  Rom.  iii,  25,  Heissmann  admits 
two  special  applications  as  possible:  Either  Versohnungs-  oder 
Siihnungsopfer  or  Versdhnungs-  oder  Siihnungsgeschenk  resp. 
-denkmaHk^^^  But  does  the  context  in  Rom.  iii,  25  demand  a 
special  meaning?  Heissmann  answers  emphatically  in  the  nega¬ 
tive  and  concludes :  ''  Her  Zusammenhang  notigt  keineswegs  zur 

Vicarious  Sacrifice,  I,  522.  '-’Op.  cit.,  210. 

Op.  cit.,  193. 


22 


Annahme  einer  Specialbedeiitimg  oder  -anwenduiig  von  tAoo-r^ptov. 
Die  Allgemeinbedeutung  geniigt  vollstandig:  ein  Yersohnendes 
oder  Siihnendes^  Yersdhnniigs-  oder  Siihnnngsmittel  Of  these 
two  special  meanings  he  maintains  as  most  probable :  Christ  must 
be  considered  als  der  Siihner  oder  das  Shhnende 

Almost  all  more  recent  exegetes  have  adopted  Deissmann’s  ex¬ 
planation.  Godet  translates  a  means  of  propitiation  ”  and 
Lattey  a  means  or  instrument  of  propitiation  Parry 
accepts  ^^the  agent  of  propitiation  All  of  them  add  that  if  the 
idea  of  sacrifice  is  not  contained  in  the  word  itself,  it  follows 
certainly  from  the  connection  wnth  the  clause  in  His  blood 
Schweizer,^^^  Zahn,^^®  Hofmann, and  Prenschen  interpret 
das  Shhnemittel  Stevens  wants  it  taken  in  its  etymolo¬ 
gical  sense  as  a  means  of  rendering  favorable,  Shhnemittel,  Ex- 
piatoriiim’b  Bernard  Weiss  ganz  allgemein  ein  Mittel, 

wodurch  die  Shnde  in  Gottes  Angen  zugedeckt  wird  ;  Bey- 
schlag  etwas  das  shhnen  kann,  etwas  Shhnkraftiges  and 

in  Eom.  iii^  25,  its  use  suggests  the  idea  eines  Suhnmittels  also, 
welches  die  Shnde  vor  Gott  zudeckt  nicht  an  und  fhr  sich,  sondern 
erst  durch  das,  was  es  in  dem  glaubigen  Menschen  wirkt^k 
Hsteri,^^*^  interpreting  the  term  as  Shhnungsmittel  notes : 

dieser  Ausdruck  kommt  einzig  und  allein  in  dieser  Stelle  vor 
But  Lipsius  insists  that  the  word  also  means  Shhnmittel,  nicht 
bios  VersohnungsmitteHk^^®  Both  meanings,  he  adds,  find  appli¬ 
cation  in  Eom.  iii,  25,  for  the  death  of  Christ  was  first  of  all 
ein  Opfertod  an  unsrer  Btatt  and  then  sofern  dieser  Opfertod 
nothig  war  um  der  gdttlichen  Gerechtigkeit  willen,  ein  Shhn¬ 
mittel  To  Prat  it  signifies  here  moyen  d’expiation  ’  on 

^  de  propitiation  ^  on  peut-etre  Pun  et  Pautre  ^k  Sickenberger 
also  includes  the  twofold  notion  for  he  renders  the  term  ver- 

^-^Op.  cit.,  211,  ^“Westminster  Version,  III,  29. 

Ibid.  Ep.  to  the  Eom.,  66. 

Comm,  on  Eom.,  152.  Op.  cit.,  467. 

Brief  an  d.  Eom.,  187. 

Schriftbeweis,  I,  226;  cf.  HI.  Schrift  d.  H.  T.,  Ill,  113. 

Griech.-Deut.  Handwortb.  z.  H.  T.,  530. 

Theology  of  N.  T.,  413. 

Paulinische  Briefe,  45;  cf.  Das  Neue  Test.,  16. 

aSTeutest.  Theologie,  II,  147-148.  Paulin,  Lehrbegriff,  116. 

Paulin.  Eechtfertigungslehre,  134. 

Op,  cit.,  144,  Theologie  de  S.  Paul,  I,  288. 

Briefe  an  d.  Kor.  und  Eihu.,  176. 


23 


sohnende  Gabe,  Siihnmittel^  Siilinopfer  According  to  Cone 
it  means  ‘‘a  means  of  propitiation  or  a  propitiatory  sacrifice 
The  sacrificial  word  propitiation  ”,  Beet  declares,  proves  that 
the  redemption  is  sacrificial  ”,  and  hence  it  is  better  to  take  the 
word  for  a  means  of  atonement,  for  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  ”.  To 
Robertson  it  signifies  propitiatory  gift  or  means  of  propi¬ 
tiation  ”. 

2.  Next  in  order  is  the  interpretation  which  views  the  sac¬ 
rifice  of  Christ  as  a  memorial  or  monnment  of  expiation  or 
propitiation.  Feine  translates  the  Pauline  term  Versohn- 
nngs-  Siihnnngsdenkmal  ”.  Fhr  diese  Bedentnng  spricht  das 
Pradikat  Trpo.  Denn  es  dentet  anf  eine  dffentliche  Schanstellung 
Christi  ”.  Near  to  this  comes  Lagrange  Tin  monnment  on 

plntot  nn  instrument  de  propitiation  on  d^expiation  ” ;  although  a 
person  cannot  be  a  monnment,  still,  by  the  will  of  God  cet  in¬ 
strument  demeure  comme  nn  monnment  destine  a  montrer  sa 
justice  ”.  Holtzmann  has :  Shhnmal  oder  Slihnmittel  ”. 

Summary  of  Modern  Exegesis 

This  historical  survey  clearly  illustrates  the  confusion  which 
modern  exegesis  has  made  of  St.  PanFs  concept.  With  compara¬ 
tively  few  exceptions  modern  authors  admit  that  in  Rom.  in,  25 
the  term  has  direct  reference  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  but  they 
widely  differ  as  to  the  exact  literal  meaning  of  the  word.  Five 
interpretations  lead : 

1.  Most  commentators  hold  that  Christ  is  the  reality,  the  ful¬ 
filment,  the  antitype  of  the  iXaaTrjpLov  in  the  Holy  of  Holies. 
Whether  St.  Paul  used  the  word  as  substantive  or  adjective 
is  also  disputed.  The  majority  are  of  opinion  that  he  used  it 
as  a  noun.  Gifford  claims  it  was  constantly  used  in  biblical 
Greek  as  a  substantive  in  the  definite  concrete  sense,  ^  place  or 
instrument  of  atonement  ’  ”.  Olshausen,^^®  Macknight,^"*^  and 
others  believe  St.  Paul  used  it  as  an  adjective  and  that  iiriOeya 
must  be  supplied. 


Paul,  20!).  Op.  cit.,  96. 

i^'Comm.  on  Rom.,  118-119.  cit.,  540. 

“^Grammar  of  Greek  N.  T.,  154.  Op.  cit.,  72. 

Tlieolo^yie  d.  N.  T.,  309. 

Ep.  aux  Rom.,  70. 

^'njelirbucli  d.  neutest.  Tlieologie,  11,  111. 


24 


2.  A  few  moderns  claim  that  l\aar7]pLov  designates  Christ  in 
His  sacrifice  as  the  expiator  or  propitiator  for  sin. 

3.  A  third  group  define  the  Pauline  word  as  the  expiatory  or 
propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Christ,  But  they  disagree  concerning  St. 
Paul’s  use  of  it.  Many  believe  he  employed  it  as  a  noun,  being 
in  form  the  neuter  of  the  adjective.  Others,  such  as  Luthardt,^'*® 
Barnes,^^®  Whedon,^^®  George  Clark,^®^  Ford,^®^  Fritzsche,^^^  etc., 
assert  just  as  firmly  that  the  Apostle  used  it  as  an  adjective  and 
that  it  demands  either  Ovfjui  or  Upelov  as  supplement. 

4.  A  few  scholars  adopt  the  abstract  meaning  expiation  or 
propitiation. 

5.  Later  exegetes  defend  the  meaning:  Christ  in  His  sacrifice 
became  the  means  or  memorial  of  expiation  or  propitiation. 

Catholic  theologians  teadh  that  the  effects  of  Christ’s  sacrifice 
are  redemption  and  justification,  implying  forgiveness  and  a  com¬ 
plete  blotting  out  of  sin  with  an  interior  sanctification  of  the  soul. 
Protestants  would  have  it  a  mere  external  cloaking  of  sins  which 
still  remain ;  a  mere  imputation  to  the  sinner  of  God’s  or  Christ’s 
justice,  and  they  seek  in  Eom.  iii,  25  a  basis  for  their  arguments. 
Thus,  as  Briggs  says  in  reference  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  in 
this  important  verse,  ‘^‘^the  sins  of  his  people  are  covered  by  the 
enduring  perpetual  blood  of  his  sin-offering.  Sins  are  ^  covered 
once  for  all  and  forever  ’  Protestants  also  place  special  em¬ 
phasis  upon  Sta  Trto-Tew?:  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  Divine 
Justice  no  more  than  opened  for  mankind  a  new  way  of  justifi¬ 
cation  leading  to  confidence  in  God’s  mercy,  which  engenders 
certainty  of  salvation.  This  confidence  alone  justifies  and  excludes 
the  necessity  of  good  works.  So  Bleibtreu  writes :  Fide !  Das 
ist  seine  Voraussetzung.  Hon  fide  et  operibus !  Das  ist  seine 
Behauptung.  Ergo  sola  fide!  Das  ist  seine  Schlussfolgerung. 
Hicht  der  Glaube,  sondern  die  Alleinigkeit  des  Glaubens  bildet 
den  Grundgedanken  in  der  Heilslehre  des  Eornerbriefes 

Despite  this  confusion,  our  review  of  modern  exegesis  has  fur¬ 
nished  valuable  information.  It  is  seen  how  moderns  choose  now 
the  element  expiation,  now  propitiation,  and  sometimes  both;  and 
quite  naturally  the  question  arises  whether  the  term  does  not 

Briefe  an  d.  Thess.,  Gal.,  Kor.,  und  Rom.,  339. 

Notes  on  Rom.,  98.  Pauli  ad  Rom.  Ep.,  I,  193. 

Comm,  on  N.  T.,  Ill,  316.  “^Op.  cit.,  148. 

^®^Rom.  and  Cor.,  58.  ^®®Op.  cit.,  550. 

152  Comm,  on  Rom.,  95. 


25 


contain  more  than  one  element.  Again  it  has  been  noticed  that 
not  a  few  scholars  referred  to  the  primary,  literal  meaning  of 
IXaarrjpiov  as  a  place  of  expiation  or  propitiation;  this  raises  a  sec¬ 
ond  question:  Is  this  the  original  meaning,  or  is  IXaar^pLov  a  gen¬ 
eral  term  for  a  means  of  expiation  or  propitiation? 

Our  attention  was  also  drawn  to  the  several  sources  whence 
modern  commentators  derive  their  meaning.  Many  go  to  the  0.  T. 
only;  others  base  their  arguments  on  profane  Greek  literature; 
still  others  have  recourse  to  the  writings  of  the  patristic  age. 
Wherefore  it  becomes  necessary  to  take  up  all  these  sources  sepa¬ 
rately  and,  by  a  careful  and  complete  study  of  each,  to  find  a 
solution  for  this  all  important  word. 

It  is  an  incontestable  fact,  recognized  more  every  day  by  modern' 
scholars,  that  the  patristic  age  is  the  important  period  for  ■  the 
solution  of  scriptural  difficulties.  Hence  the  necessity  of  consulting 
the  writings  of  these  eminent  expounders  of  Christian  doctrine  in 
the  present  discussion.  These  writers  will  undoubtedly  throw 
much  light  on  the  exegetical  history  of  Eom.  in,  25,  since  they 
give  us  the  earliest  explanation.  We,  therefore,  submit  the  works 
of  both  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers  to  thorough  examination  in 
order  to  ascertain  their  views  on  a  word  which  has  proved  such  a 
baffling  problem  to  modern  exegetes. 

2.  IN  THE  GREEK  FATHERS 

Here  already  it  must  be  stated  that  the  interpretation  of 
IXaar^pLov  in  Greek  patristic  literature  constitutes  a  remarkably 
uniform  contrast  to  modern  exegesis.  Modern  commentators,  with 
exceptions  of  course,  start  out  with  the  supposition  that  the  term 
is  best  explained  through  the  context  in  which  it  is  found,  instead 
of  first  seeking  the  correct  meaning  of  the  word  and  then  testing 
whether  this  meaning  is  in  conformity  with  the  context.  The 
Fathers,  on  the  contrary,  first  establish  the  source  and  then  inter¬ 
pret  Rom.  Ill,  25  accordingly.  They  seek  the  origin  of  the  word 
in  the  0.  T.  and  their  fundamental  idea  is  that  the  0.  T.  use  of 
IXaar^pLov  describes  it  as  a  place  where  God  was  present  to  dis¬ 
tribute  His  mercy.  Christ  is  the  real  fulfilment  of  His  type  in 
the  Holy  of  Holies.  In  other  words,  the  essential  signification  for 
the  Greek  Fathers  is  locality.  To  grasp  the  importance  of  this 
fact  and  to  let  their  exegesis  of  Rom.  in,  25’  appear  in  its  proper 
light,  it  will  be  useful  to  give  a  few  general  illustrations  of  the 
trend  of  thought  among  Greek  patristic  writers. 


26 


Athanasius^  arguing  against  the  Arians,  constructs  the  fol¬ 
lowing  dilemma.  When  the  Israelites  were  commanded  to  go  up 
to  Jerusalem  to  adore  in  the  temple,  where  the  ark  was  and  above 

it  the  lXacTTr]piov — cv6a  r;  kl/Swtos  Kal  virepdvM  TavTrj<;  ...  to  iXacTTTjpLOVy 

was  their  act  of  adoration  worthy  of  praise  or  blame?  If  the 
latter,  why  were  those  punished  who  neglected  this  duty?  And  if 
their  conduct  was  praisew^orthy,  as  the  Arians  admit  it  was,  why 
do  they  refuse  to  adore  the  Lord  in  His  flesh  as  existing  in  a 
temple — tov  K^vptov  iv  uapKi,  (i)?  Iv  mw  dvra,  TrpoaKvvetv,  since  the 
type  ceased  with  the  coming  of  the  reality — IkBovctt)^  Se  Trj<;  dXrjOela'?, 
Triiravrai  Xolttov  6  totto??^®®  The  contrast  is  signiflcaiit.  The 
IXao-Tijpiov,  guarded  by  the  cherubim,  designated  the  special  locality 
in  the  temple  of  the  0.  T.  where  the  Israelites  were  commanded 
to  adore.  This  type  was  supplanted  by  Christ  the  reality.  His 
flesh  was  the  temple  containing  the  H.  T.  iXacjT^piov,  the  real  place 
of  adoration. 

Cyril  of  Alexandria,  expounding  Jn.  vii^  14,  gives  more  inter¬ 
esting  information.  He  begins  by  stating  that  Cod  dwells  every¬ 
where.  We  believe,  however,  that  He  more  emphatically  dwells 
in  holy  places  and  very  reasonably  may  we  infer  that  the  divine 
nature  is  revealed  to  us  in  places  especially  sacred — rfj  Bela  cfivaei 
oLKovcTTov  r^plv  kv  lepols  pLaXicTTa  tottois  kueaBai  Immediately  he  adds : 

But  what  was  described  to  the  Jews  in  type  and  figure,  that 
Christ  now  changes  into  reality — oVep  8e  TvdXiv  kv  tvttm  Kal  crxta  rot? 
dvcDTepti)  Kareypa^ero,  rovro  vvv  ci?  dX^Beiav  pieracTKevd^eL  He 

then  explains :  God  ordered  Moses  to  place  the  propitiatory  over 
the  ark  and  there  He  would  instruct  and  speak  to  him.  The  pro¬ 
pitiatory  was,  then,  the  peculiarly  sacred  spot  where  the  divine 
manifestation  resided.  Therefore,  he  continues,  when  St.  John 
records  Christ’s  going  up  into  the  temple  to  teach  the  people,  he 
means  to  say  that  Christ  as  God  went  up  into  the  hallowed  place 
consecrated  to  God — kv  toL  lepols  tc  Kal  ai/o^Ket/xeVot?  TM  TOTTOL'i 
TrapeXBkov  w?  His  presence  as  God  was  not  perceived  by 

the  Jews  just  as  the  presence  of  God  OA^er  the  propitiatory  Avas 
imperceptible.  With  us  the  type  has  become  realized — 6  tov 

TrpdypaTO^;  tutto?  dXr)B^i]<i  k<f)^  rjpLwv,  because  Christ  Himself  as  iXaariqpiov 
is  now  the  particular  spot  sanctifying  the  temple  just  as  the  0.  T. 
IXaar^pLov  was  the  one  that  sanctified  the  temple.  And  Christ, 
although  dwelling  among  the  JeAvs  in  His  flesh,  noAv  speaks  to 

tr.6  mpg,  26,  1080-1081,  Ep.  ad  Adelphiiim. 

MPG,  73,  653. 


27 


them  as  once  God  did  from  the  propitiatory — warrep  odv  Ik  tov 
IkacTTTjpLov  iraXai  6  ©eoGd®®  According  to  this  explanation  the  0.  T. 
IXadT^ptov  was  the  particular  place  where  God  manifested  Himself 
and  communicated  His  orders  to  Moses.  Christ  now,  being  the 
antitype,  is  the  real  place  where  God  manifests  Himself  to  men  and 
communicates  with  them. 

Hilus,  in  Peristeria  iv,  where  w^e  find  a  short  treatise  on  prayer, 
writes  that  any  place  is  suitable  for  praver,  for  it  is  not  so  much 
the  place  as  the  sentiments  of  the  one  praying  that  make  the 
prayer.  It  was  of  no  benefit,  he  says,  for  the  Jews  to  approach 
even  to  the  most  impenetrable  part  of  the  temple  and  there,  de¬ 
voutly  surrounding  the  propitiatory — TreptTrTvcrcTopievoi  o-TrouSat'w?  to 
IXao-TypLov — to  pray,  because  God  would  not  hear  their  prayers  since 
their  hands  were  full  of  blood  (Is.  i,  15).^^®  Hilus  evidently  refers 
to  the  IXacTTypLov  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  as  the  place  KaP  i^oxyy 
where  the  Jews  might  expect  to  be  heard. 

In  Quaest.  in  Levit.,  Theodoket  of  Cyrus  quotes  Lev.  xvi,  2 
as  evidence  that  God  manifested  His  own  peculiar  presence  in  the 
propitiatory — kv  tm  iXacrrrjp'ni)  Tr]V  oiKeiav  em^dvetav  6  AecTTrorry?  eTrotetro 
Commenting  on  Ps.  cxxxi,  8  he  informs  us  that  tnrough 
the  propitiatory  the  High  Priest  obtained  knowledge  of  the  divine 
presence — eKelvov  l^lXaaryjpLov  ]  TM  dpytepet  pLrjvvpjaTa  riva  Tij<; 

i7n(f>aveta^  eytVero.^®^  Quoting  from  Is.  Lxvi,  1,  he  adds  that  God 
does  not  dwell  in  temples  made  by  hands  but  that  heaven  is  His 
throne  and  the  earth  His  footstool.  “What  is  this  house  which 
you  will  build  to  me?  and  what  is  this  place  of  my  rest? 

These  few  examples  show  that,  in  the  mind  of  the  Greek  Fathers, 
the  0.  T.  IXaarrjpLov  was  the  place  of  adoration,  prayer,  and  divine 
manifestation.  As  we  shall  see  they  base  their  interpretation  of 
IXaaTTjpiov  in  Eom.  iii,  25  upon  this  use  of  the  term  in  the  0.  T. 
and  for  them  the  word  was  self  explanatory. 

The  most  detailed  exposition  of  Eom.  in,  25  is  given  by  Origex' 
in  his  commentary  on  the  epistle  to  the  Eomans,  of  which  we  have 
only  the  Latin  recension  by  Eufinus. 

Origen^s  first  step  is  to  find  the  source,  and  he  believes  St.  Paul 
adopted  the  word  from  the  0.  T.  This  is  evident  from  the  fol¬ 
lowing  :  “  Et  videtur  propitiatorium  hoc,  de  quo  scriptum  est  in 
Exodo,  ad  nullum  nisi  ad  Salvatorem  Dominum  retulisse  cum 

^'«0p.  cit.,  656.  80,  1905. 

icuMPO,  79,  829.  cit.,  1908. 

’^oMPG,  80,  328. 


28 


dicit,  quia  hunc  posuit  ^  Deus  propitiatorium  per  fidem  ^  In 

his  commentary  on  St.  John’s  gospel  Origen  speaks  of  Christ  as 
our  advocate.,  tAatr/xd?,  and  rd  IXaaTTjpLov.  As  proof  for  the  first  two 
appellations  he  cites  I  Jn.  ii^  1-2,  and  for  the  third,  Eom.  25. 
To  the  latter  quotation  he  adds  the  remark  that  the  golden  pro¬ 
pitiatory  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  was  a  shadow  of  the  Pauline 

IXacTT^pLOV — ov  IXaarrjpLov  et?  to,  ca^rara  Kal  'Ayta  tmv  dytwv  <TKia  tis' 
drdyyave  rd  \pv(TOvv  IXaar^pLov.^^'^ 

Having  now  established  the  foundation  for  the  Pauline  term  he 
proceeds  to  determine  more  precisely  its  full  meaning.  Since  the 
Apostle  writes  that  Christ  was  proposed  as  tAao-r^ptov  through  faith 
in  His  blood,  it  is  necessary  to  investigate  “  quae  sit  propitiatio 
quae  per  sanguinem  fiat  ”,  so  that  we  can  understand  quomodo 
etiam  per  sanguinem  Jesu  propitiatio  facta  sit”.  Origen  returns 
to  the  sacrificial  ritual  of  the  Mosaic  law  and  proves  from  Ps.  cix, 
4  and  Plebr.  v  that  in  the  H.  T.  Christ  Himself  is  the  priest  who 
offers  the  sacrifice;  and  from  Jn.  i,  29  that  He  is  also  the  Lamb 
that  is  slain.  Hence  he  calls  Christ  propitiatorium,  et  pontificem, 
et  hostiam  quae  offertur  pro  populo  ”.  As  victim  Christ  effected 
expiation  profusione  sanguinis  sui  ”  and  this  effect  consisted  in 
eo  quod  dat  remissionem  praecedentium  delictorum  Acccord- 
ing  to  these  quotations  Christ  by  His  sacrifice  made  expiation  and 
procured  propitiation. 

That  the  notion  of  sacrifice  flows  into  the  elements  of  expiation 
and  propitiation,  appears  distinctly  from  Origen’s  homily  24  In 
Numeros.  As  long  as  sin  existed  it  required  victims  for  sin,  and 
the  sacrifice  thereof  was  intended  ad  reconciliandum  hominibus 
Deum  ”.  If  sin  had  not  entered  the  world  Christ  would  not  neces¬ 
sarily  have  had  to  become  man  and  the  Lamb  of  God.  Peccati 
autem  necessitas  propitiationem  requirit”;  but  ^^propitiatio  non 
fit  nisi  per  hostiam”  and  therefore  ^Aecessarium  fuit  provider! 
hostiam  pro  peccato”.  Christ  was  this  one  victim  and  such  was 
the  cleansing  power  of  His  sacrifice  ut  una  sola  sufficeret  pro 
totius  mundi  salute  Thus  we  learn  that  propitiatio  ”  in¬ 

volves  sacrifice,  hostia  ”  points  out  the  expiatory  element,  while 
reconciliatio  ”  and  salus  ”  describe  the  propitiatory  element. 

To  prevent  anyone  thinking  that  this  doctrine  is  a  fond  inven¬ 
tion  of  St.  Paul’s,  Origen  refers  also  to  I  Jn.  ii^  1-2.  To  him  St. 

MPG,  14,  947.  MPG,  14,  950. 

MPG,  14,  89. 

MPG,  12,  757-758.  Cf.  12,  454  and  754. 


29 


John  seems  to  enhance  the  atonement  mystery  by  declaring  that 
Christ  is  advocate  and  IXacrfio^  not  only  for  the  sins  of  the  faithful 
but  also  for  those  of  the  whole  world.  Both  apostles  speak  of 
Christ  in  one  and  the  same  sense.  Therefore^  he  concludes^  it 
matters  little  which  way  IXacrT^piov  is  taken,  sive  propitiator 
sive  ^  propitiatorium  sive  ‘  propitiatio  sive  etiam  ^  exoratio  ^  .  .  .  , 
cum  apud  Graecos  uno  semper  eodemque  sermone  proferatur 
He  adds  a  curious  remark:  ^^Hisi  forte  videatur  quibusdam  ^ pro¬ 
pitiatio  ^  ipsa  ejus  divina  substantia;  ^propitiator^  vero,  cum  dis- 
pensationes  in  hominibus  explet,  intelligi  Which  would  mean 
that  propitiatio  refers  to  the  divine  nature  in  Christ  and  pro- 
piator  ”  to  His  human  nature. 

Our  conclusion  from  Origen  must  be  this.  The  Pauline  term' 
expresses  the  reality  of  what  the  symbol  in  the  Holy  of  Holies 
typified.  The  notion  of  sacrifice  enters  intimately  into  Origen's 
exegesis.  His  remark  that  the  word  was  employed  by  the  Greeks 
with  various  meanings  is  an  indication  that  Origen  was  quite 
familiar  with  a  situation  v^hich  is  a  difficult  problem  to  us. 

From  his  exposition  of  Ps.  lxxix,  3-4  wherein  Kom.  in,  25  is 
quoted,  it  is  evident  that,  to  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  also,  IkaaTypLov 
represented  the  reality  of  what  was  prefigured  by  the  0.  T.  symbol. 
He  explains  the  propitiatory  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  as  an  image 
and  exemplar — elKova  kuI  tvttov — of  Him  whom  Ezechiel  saw  in  a 
vision  (Ez.  i),  namely,  the  Yerbum  Dei  and  adds  as  evidence  the 
Pauline  quotation  of  Eom.  iii,  25}^^ 

In  book  VIII  of  the  Demonstratio  Evangelica,  Eusebius  shows 
how  the  prophecy  given  to  Daniel  (ix,'  27)  was  fulfiled  with  the 
advent  of  Christ.  The  world  stood  in  need  of  a  living  and  a  real 

iXacrpLO^  —  SelcrOai  irav  to  rdov  avSpMrrroiv  yero?  IXacrpiov  Kal 

aXrjOivov.  The  sacrifices  of  the  0.  T.  were  ineffective  because  they 
could  not  completely  remove  sin.  However  they  served  as  types 
of  what  was  to  come.  Especially  was  the  Mosaic  iXadT^piov  a 
type — TVTTOV  c<f)epe  to  irapa  Mcjaei  KaTacrKevaaOev  iXaaTypLOVy  and  its 
antitype  was  no  other  than  our  Saviour  and  Lord — o^ro?  8e  ^v  6 
'^(OTgp  Kal  Kiipto?  r)ixMv,  who,  ill  the  words  of  St.  John  (i,  29),  is 
the  Lamb  that  takes  away  the  sins  of  the  world 

Again  the  0.  T.  type  offers  the  foundation  for  Eusebius’s  inter¬ 
pretation.  Christ  is  its  antitype,  i.  e.,  the  place  where,  by  His 


14,  051. 
MPG,  23,  950. 
i«»MPG,  22,  001. 


30 


sacrifice  as  Lamb,  He  expiates  all  sins  and  propitiates  God.  Jnst 
as  clear  is  the  distinction  between  tAao-fto?  and  iXaar'qpiov.  As 
IXafTT^pLov  Christ  is  the  true  place;  as  tAao-/xo9  His  sacrifice  is  the 
means  of  procuring  a  real  and  living  expiation  and  propitiation 
for  the  world. 

Basil,  the  Great,  expounding  Ps.  xlvtii,  8,  wmrns  against  seek¬ 
ing  a  brother  as  redeemer,  or  any  mere  man  instead  of  some  one 
who  surpasses  our  nature;  the  reason  being  precisely  because  all 
men  are  sinners.  That  someone  is  none  other  than  ‘^Hhe  God- 
man  Jesus  Christ  who  needs  no  l^iXaa-pM,  nor  is  His  soul  to  be  re¬ 
deemed^’.  Basil  next  describes  how  Christ  wrought  our  redemp¬ 
tion  :  not  by  ransom — /xera  Avrpwv,  neither  by  gifts — ^/xem  S^pcov^  but 
by  His  own  blood — eV  rw  iavrov  aipxiTL.  As  evidence  for  his  state¬ 
ments  Basil  quotes  Eom.  iii,  25,  and  concludes  by  saying  that 
Christ  could  redeem  us  since  he  needs  no  cAao-go?  but  is  Himself 
IXacTT^piov — ov  yap  tAacr/xov  Selrai  dAA’  avro?  eanv  IXaarypiov.^^^ 

According  to  Basil  Christ  as  God-man  could  expiate  the  sins  of 
all  men  and  redeem  them.  It  clearly  appears  from  the  quotations 
that  Basil  distinguishes  between  i^lXacrpa,  lXaap6<i^  and  tAao-r^pior; 
the  former  two  pointing  to  the  means  employed,  i.  e.,  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ,  while  the  latter  points  directly  to  Him.  The  contrast 
of  IXaapuo^  to  iXaariqpiov,  together  wfith  the  local  meaning  of 
iXao-T^pLov,  demands  the  contextual  sense  that  Christ  by  means  of 
His  sacrifice  became  the  place  of  expiation  and  propitiation. 

Gregory  of  Hyssa  in  a  very  expressive  application  avers  that 
by  considering  Christ  as  IXaaT^piov  in  His  blood — IXaar^piov  Iv  tm 
ISlm  atpuaTL  6  Xpto’TO's  voov/xevo?,  we  are  taught  that  each  and  every 
one  becomes  a  IXacrTrjpiov  himself  —  avrov  cKaarov  yeveaOai  eavTO) 
IXaar^piov  —  through  cleansing  the  soul  by  death-like  mortifica¬ 
tion  Previously  he  enumerates  more  than  25  titles  indicating 
the  office,  power,  and  qualities  of  Christ.  Among  them  we  find: 
Christ  The  Eedemption,  High  Priest,  Paschal  Lamb,  and  IXaar^piov 
Again,  in  De  Vita  Moysis,  when  dealing  with  the  sig¬ 
nification  of  the  propitiatory  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  Gregory  says 
oddly  enough  that  ^Hts  meaning  needs  no  explanation  since  St. 
Paul  clearly  defined  it  when  he  wrote ;  Whom  God  hath  proposed 
as  IXacTTrjpiov  of  our  souls — 6v  TTpoiOero  6  ©eo?  IXaaTrjpiov  tmv  i/'vywv 

t  ~  173 

rjpuiiv  . 

29,  440-441. 

MPG,  46,  264,  De  Perfecta  Christ.  Forma. 

MPG,  46,  253.  MPG,  46.  384. 


31 


The  meaning,  then,  of  IXao-T^piov  must  have  been  perefctly  clear 
to  Gregory  and  his  readers.  In  the  first  quotation  it  is  interesting 
to  observe  that  we  can  become  a  Ikaar^pLov  by  acts  of  penance  and 
mortification.  These  acts  are  the  means,  and  the  only  possible 
idea  expressed  by  IXaa-r^pLov  is  that  of  locality;  namely,  we  are  the 
place  where,  by  means  of  penance  and  mortification,  expiation  and 
propitiation  are  offered.  Then  Christ  as  IXaaT^ptov  of  souls  means 
that  He  is  the  sanctuary,  the  realization  of  the  0.  T.  type,  whinn 
souls  find  expiation  and  propitiation.  While  the  type  was  sprinkled 
with  blood  in  order  to  procure  expiation  and  propitiation,  Christ 
effected  the  same  for  us  by  His  own  blood.  Gregory’s  curious 
remark  concerning  the  self-evident  meaning  of  the  0.  T.  iXaa-TijpLov, 
gives  the  important  and  direct  information  that  St.  Paul  applied, 
the  term  to  Christ  with  that  same  fundamental  meaning  which  it 
has  in  0.  T.  usage. 


What  is  doubtless  a  copy  of  Basil’s  interpretation  of  the  Pauline 
word  as  found  in  his  commentary  on  Ps.  xlviii,  8,  is  given  by 
Didymus  the  Blind  in  his  exposition  of  the  same  psalm. But 
Didymus  also  presents  us  with  his  own  exegesis  in  his  commentary 
on  Ps.  cxxix,  4.  Christ  the  Saviour,  expiating  and  dissolving 
sins  —  6  IXadKopevo^^  Kal  ra?  afxaprla^  '^oirr^p,  is  OUr  lAaa/xo?. 

Since  all  men  have  sinned,  all  also  need  the  tAacr/xd?  of  Christ  by 
which  salvation  is  obtained — -n-apa  aov  iXaapiov  IXaaKopLevov 
TTy?  TrdvToiv  eveKa  (T(DT7]pLa<?  ”.  To  prove  that  Christ  expiated  the  sins 
of  all  and  redeemed  all,  thus  effecting  propitiation,  Didymus  quotes 
I  Jn.  ii^  1-2  and  Eom.  iii,  23-25.^^® 

As  employed  by  Epiphanius,  IXac-T^piov  retains  its  fundamental 
meaning  of  locality  as  well  as  the  double  idea  of  expiation  and 
propitiation.  In  Ancoratus  lxv  he  discusses  the  advent  of  the 
Saviour  into  the  world.  Citing  the  words  of  St.  Paid  (Eom.  viii, 
3  and  I  Cor.  i,  30)  he  portrays  the  coming  of  Christ  in  the  like¬ 
ness  of  sinful  flesh  in  order  to  redeem  us  from  servitude,  cor¬ 
ruption,  and  death;  Christ  has  become  justice,  sanctification,  and 
redemption.  The  last  three  words  Epiphanius  refers  to  the  blot¬ 
ting  out  of  sin,  to  our  justification  and  our  deliverance  by  the 
blood  of  Christ,  and  then  he  adds :  IXacrTripiov  Ka^dptreco?  K6crp.ov. 
KaraXXay^]^  aTrdvTwv  iv  ovpavM  Kal  [ctti]  Again  we  see  the 

antithesis  to  the  0.  T.  IXanT^pLov.  The  latter  served  as  the  special 


39,  1384-1385. 

”®MPG,  30,  1585-]588. 

i’«MPG,  43,  133.  Cf.  42,  477,  Adv.  Baer.,  ITT,  1. 


32 


place  of  expiation  and  propitiation  for  the  Israelites  only;  Christ, 
the  reality,  is  in  His  sacrifice  the  place  of  expiation  for  the  world 
(KaOdpaeo)^  Koafiov)  and  the  place  of  propitiation  for  all  peoples 
(KaraAAay'^?  diravTiov) .  The  element  of  sacrifice  is  essentially  con¬ 
tained  in  this  notion^  hecanse  it  is  only  through  the  shedding  of 
His  blood  that  Christ  became  the  H.  T.  iXaar^pLov. 

The  exegesis  of  Eom.  iii,  25  by  John-  Chrysostom,  the  greatest 
commentator  of  St.  Paul,  is  brief  but  pointed.  He  calls  attention 
to  this  that  the  Apostle  has  lXa(jTr}piov  Iv  rw  avrov  alpbaTL,  thus  re¬ 
calling  to  mind  the  0.  T.  sheep  and  oxen  offered  in  sacrifice  for 
sin.  If  their  blood-shedding  served  in  a  manner  to  free  from  sin, 
he  writes,  how  much  more  valuable  must  be  the  blood  of  Christ. 
He  then  points  out  the  use  of  dTroAvr/owcrt?  by  iSt.  Paul  in  pre¬ 
ference  to  Xvrpo)aL<;,  which  shows  that  “our  redemption  was  not 
merely  a  delivery  from  sin  but  a  real  buying  back,  the  ransom 
being  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ  For  this  reason,  he  adds, 
the  Apostle  calls  Christ  IXao-TTjpLov,  arguing  that  “  if  the  type 
(ruVo?)  had  such  expiatory  and  propitiatory  power,  the  reality 
(dX^6aa)  must  have  by  far  greater  By  the  term  tvtto^  Chry¬ 

sostom  most  probably  aims  at  the  0.  T.  iXacrr^piov  as  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  the  Pauline  word.  Christ  in  His  own  blood  is  the  reality 
of  this  type  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  symbolic  animal  sacrifices 
of  the  0.  T.^^« 

Hesychius,  priest  and  monk  of  Jerusalem,  quotes  Eom.  iii,  25 
in  his  exposition  of  Lev.  xvi,  2.  He  finds  a  figure  of  Christ  in 
all  that  concerns  the  0.  T.  propitiatory.  Christ  is  the  “  verum 
et  intelligibile  propitiatorium,  utpote  qui  ipse  nobis  peccatorum 
propitiationem  praestat  His  flesh  served  as  the  veil  of  His 
divinity  just  as  the  Holy  of  Holies  was  shielded  by  a  veil — velamen 
enim  Christus  habet  carnem,  tegumentum  divinitatis  suae,  quem- 
admodum  et  hoc  quod  erat  sensibile  velamen  tegumentum  Sanctis 
sanctorum  fuit.^^^  Expounding  v.  14  he  writes  that  Christ  offered 
His  sacrifice  for  the  remission  of  sins.  Christ  suffered  for  our 
propitiation  and  enlightenment  and  therefore  the  very  passion 

AIPG,  60,  444. 

Chrysostom  offers  a  striking  parallel  in  homily  2,  Sermo  de  Cruce  et 
Latrone  ( MPG,  49,  408 ) .  He  states  that  the  cross  was  an  altar  ( dvaiaarr}- 
piov  6  cTavpos) .  If  the  cross  was  an  altar,  i.  e.,  the  place  of  offering 
Christ’s  sacrifice,  then  the  Pauline  Vkaar'qpLov,  being  so  inseparably  con¬ 
nected  with  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  would  seem  to  find  its  best  interpretation 
as  a  place  of  expiation  and  propitiation. 

MPG,  93,  983-984. 


33 


is  called  propitiatorium  —  ad  propitiationem  enim  nostram, 
simulque  illuminationem,  passio  salutaris  per  acta  est :  unde 
ipsa  passio  dicitur  propitiatoriumd®*^  Hesychius  sees  in  the 
Pauline  term  an  expression  of  reality  in  contrast  to  the  0.  T. 
symbol.  This  reality  is  Christ,  who  is  both  God  and  man,  by 
whose  sacrifice  expiation  and  propitiation  were  wrought.  Pro- 
pitiatio’^  is  to  Hesychius  the  expiatory  and  propitiatory  sacrifice 
of  Christ  as  means  of  redemption ;  propitiatorium  is  Christ 
Himself,  as  place  through  which  propitiatio  proceeds.  In  call¬ 
ing  the  passion  “  propitiatorium  Hesychius  would  seem  to  un¬ 
derstand  this  figuratively  since,  if  taken  out  of  its  context,  the 
more  natural  sense  would  behold  in  the  passion  the  means  of  ex¬ 
piation  and  propitiation. 

Cykil  of  Alexandria  quotes  and  explains  the  Pauline  term  a 
number  of  times.  In  the  exposition  of  the  epistle  to  the  Eomans 
he  thus  comments  on  v.  25 :  Christ,  by  offering  His  own  blood 
as  ransom  for  the  life  of  all — arrdvTwv  dvTaXXayfMi  TO  iSiov 
aifxa,  saved  all  for  heaven — aeaoiKe  r^v  VTT^  ovpavov^  and  rendered  His 
Father  propitious  and  merciful  The  objects  of  IXaaT^pLov  are 
here  the  sacrificial  expiation  of  sin  by  the  blood  of  Christ  and  the 
reconciliation  of  mankind  with  God. 

Deeper  knowledge  of  CyriPs  exegesis  is  gleaned  from  the  ix 
book,  De  Adoratione  in  Spiritu  et  Yeritate.  In  a  dialogue  with 
Palladius,  Cyril  explains  the  symbolism  of  the  ark  and  the 
propitiatory;  both  are  types  of  Christ.  Taken  literally  the  latter 
w^as  a  golden  plate  placed  over  the  ark  of  the  covenant.  Regarded 
figuratively  it  represents  Him  who  became  man  for  us ;  as  evidence 
Cyril  quotes  I  Jn.  ii^  1-2  and  Rom.  iii,  25.  He  continues :  “  For 
through  Christ  we  obtain  tAacr/xo?  —  St  avrov  yap  IXacrpio?,  and  so 
Christ  Aiiro?  oiv  dpa  to  IXaaTrjpiov  The  distinction  drawn  between 
IXaapA^  and  IXaarrjpLov,  together  with  the  reference  to  the  0.  T. 
suggests  that  Christ  as  IXoxrrrjptov  is  the  place  where  IXacrpA^  is  given. 

Palladius,  however,  craves  more  information  and  Cyril  again 
affirms  that  ark  and  propitiatory  were  types  of  Christ,  quoting 
once  more  I  Jn.  1-2  and  stating  that  in  Rom.  in,  25  St.  Paul 
refers  to  Christ  as  IXaariqpLov  Bia  ttiVtcw?.  Cyril  bases  his  explana¬ 
tion  on  the  statement  in  Ex.  xxv,  22  that  God  would  speak  to 
Moses  from  over  the  propitiatory  from  the  midst  of  the  two 
cherubim.  Christ  is  to  lXaa-Tt]pLov  placed  on  high — to  IXaa-Trjpiov, 


MPG,  93,  995. 
3 


74,  780. 


““MPG,  GS,  600. 


34 


TO  vij/ov  KELfievov,  and  is  guarded  by  the  heavenly  powers,  signifying 
that  the  Son  is  known  to  ns  not  only  as  man  but  also  as  God  and 
the  Lord  of  all — ov  yap  Ik  plovmv  ■^plv  rwv  Kcvcoaews  t/dottwv  yvwpijito? 
6  Yto?,  aXXa  Kol  (hv  lari  @eo?  /cm  tmv  oXinv  At  the 

IXaaTTjptov  the  adoration  proper  to  God  alone  was  offered;  therefore 
the  place  above  the  cherubim  makes  manifest  to  us  pre-eminently 
the  divine  nature — 6  vnepavco  rcov  Xepoo/?tjU,  totto?,  Km  al(j6r]T^<i  .  .  . 
piovovov)(l  Ty]v  Oeiav  -^plv  KaTaSrjXoL  cfivciv 

In  book  X  Cyril  compares  Christ  to  the  he-goat  sacrificed  on  the 
Atonement  day.  This  entire  ceremony,  he  says,  found  its  fulfil¬ 
ment  in  Christ  who  was  without  sin,  bore  our  sins,  and  died  for 
us  on  the  cross.  Christ  ivas  made  for  us  not  only  tAao-/^o?  but 
also  IXuarypLov — yeyove  yap  yplv  lXaapi6<i  re  Kal  IXaaTijpiov,  6  Xpicrro?. 
In  His  blood  there  is  granted  salvation  and  life  to  the  world — t^v 
Tov  KocrpLov  croiTrjplav  Kal  and  a  most  perfect  cleansing — reAeo- 
Tarrjv  .  .  .  ri/v  airoKaBapatv — to  all,  Jews  as  wjbII  as  Gentiles 

In  the  same  book  Cyril  explains  to  Palladius  the  symbolism  of 
the  voice  that  spoke  to  Moses  from  over  the  propitiatory.  This 
also  is  applicable  to  Christ,  “  to  aXrjOh  iXaar^pLov,  who  said  that 
the  words  which  He  spoke  were  not  His  but  those  of  His  Father 
who  sent  Him  (Jn.  vi,  64).  And,  as  the  Scriptures  testify.  He 
is  also  tXaarypLov  .  .  .  virep  tmv  ap^apriMv  ypiwv  Here  again  we 

notice  that  Cyril  also  identifies  Christ  as  IXoaT^piov  with  His  Father. 
Just  as  the  Father  manifested  Himself  to  Moses  and  spoke  to  him 
from  over  the  propitiatory  so  now  in  Christ  as  IXaarr^pLov  is  the 
divinity  manifested. 

In  Cyriks  comment  on  Hab.  iii,  2  we  are  told  that,  according 
to  St.  Paul,  Christ  is  IXacrri^pLov  Sia  Trjs  Triareo)^  and^  as  such  He 
freed  us  from  every  charge,  rendered  His  Father  propitious  and 
easy  of  access ’b  With  the  advent  of  Christ,  Cyril  proceeds,  the 
obscure  types  and  figures  of  the  0.  T.  became  realized.  Thus  the 
typical  propitiatory  had  its  reality  in  Christ.^®®  Then  follows  the 
emphatic  remark  that  although  Christ  was  made  flesh  and  set 
forth  by  the  Father  as  tXaa-TT^pLov,  yet  He  ceased  not  to  be  what 
He  was,  namely,  God — dAA’  el  Kal  yiyove  crdp^,  Kal  reOeiTai  Trapa  tov 
HaTpd?  IXacTT^piov,  ovk  aTTO^ef^XrjKev  direp  rjv,  TovreaTi,  to  eivai  Geo? 

The  cherubim  still  surround  to  IXauT^piov  and  contemplate  it 
unceasingly  After  these  preliminaries  Cyril  explains  the  words 
of  the  prophet  thus:  Thou  wilt  be  known,  0  Lord,  from  the 


MPG,  68,  620. 
AIPG,  68,  688. 


““AIPG,  68,  717. 
^^^MPG,  71,  897. 


35 


type  and  figure  in  the  Holy  of  Holies.  When  made  similar  to  ns 
in  the  flesh  Thou  hast  become  the  IXacrr^pLov.  Thou  wilt  stand  in 
the  midst  of  the  two  animals,  i.  e.,  the  two  cherubim  guarding  the 
propitiatory  and  Thy  name  will  be  to  TAao-r^ptov 

To  summarize  Cyril’s  exegesis :  God,  sin  and  man  are  always 
the  objects  of  iXauT^pLov.  The  notion  of  sacrifice  enters  intimately 
into  the  word  and  Cyril  clearly  distinguishes  tAacr/xos  from  IXacrr^piov. 
In  Christ  as  IXao-T^pLov  the  divine  presence  is  manifested  just  as  it 
was  made  manifest  above  the  0.  T.  symbolic  place.  Christ’s  pia- 
cular  sacrifice  was  the  tAao-^o?,  the  means  of  redemption  for  all 
people.  Several  times  Cyril  calls  Christ  IXaur^pLov  Sta  (ry^)  Tricrrew? 
and  quotes  no  more  of  Rom.  iii,  25.^®®  This  certainly  must  have 
been  done  intentionally  by  him  with  a  definite  end  in  view. 
Mathis  has  conclusively  proven  that  the  general  function  of 
TTto-Tt?  in  the  Pauline  epistles  is  that  of  reality  in  contrast  to  mere 
appearance.  This  conclusion  may  well  be  applied  to  Cyril’s  quo¬ 
tations.  By  continually  appending  8ta  riy?  Trio-rew?  to  IXaaTypiov 
Cyril  would  prove  that  the  Pauline  use  of  the  word  expresses  the 
reality  as  against  the  0.  T.  mere  appearance. 

Theodoret  of  Cyrus  offers  the  interpretation  with  wdiich  we  are 
already  familiar.  In  Rom.  iii,  25  St.  Paul  teaches  that  Christ 
the  Lord  is  the  real  iXaarypLOV — to  aXyOiVOv  iXaurypiov  6  AecrTTory^ 
icTTL  l^puTTO'i of  this  the  0.  T.  iXaarypLOV  bore  the  type — to  TraXatov 
TovTov  Tov  TVTTov  cTcXypov.^^^  Again,  Rom.  Ill,  25  occurs  in  Theo¬ 
dor  et’s  commentary  on  Ez.  xliii,  10-15.  The  two  IXac-Typua  which 
the  prophet  saw  in  his  vision  of  the  new  temple,  the  one  being 
larger  than  the  other,  refer  to  the  IXaa-TypLov  of  the  0.  and  H.  T. 
Hence,  since  the  0.  T.  was  a  type  of  the  Hew,  the  IXaaTypiov  of  the 
former  was  also  a  type  of  the  latter — rv7ro<;  yap  ...  to  IXaurypiov 
ixeivo  TOV  ypieTepov  iXacTypiov,  and  this  is  Christ — XptCTO?  l(JTL  TO 
ypieTepov  IXaaTypiov. 

The  conclusion  is  obvious.  Christ  is  the  reality  of  what  was 
symbolized  by  the  0.  T.  place  where  expiation  and  propitiation 
were  procured  by  sacrifice. 

CosMAS  Indicopleustas,  in  Topographia  v,  uses  the  Pauline  word 
in  support  of  his  argument  that  Christ  in  His  incarnation  became 
the  H.  T.  reality  in  contrast  to  the  type  in  the  Holy  of  Holies — 

^«"Op.  cit.,  900. 

also  71,  905  and  90<S 

^«The  Pauline  ni2Ti:S-Tn02TA2:i2:,  Washington,  1920. 

82,  84.  "“'AIPG,  81,  1232. 


36 


TVTTO?  Sk  7]v  TO  IXaaT^pLOV  tov  AecTTTOTOv  Xpiarou  Kara  aapKa.^^^  Else¬ 
where  Cosmas  states  that  the  0.  T.  symbol  foreshadowed  the  office 
of  the  Lord  Christ — rd^iv  CTre^ov  tov  Aiar-orov  XptaTov.^^^  Again 
we  see  that  Christ  the  reality  replaced  the  0.  T.  type.  As  God  was 
present  and  made  Himself  manifest  in  the  type,  so  is  He  also 
present  and  becomes  manifest  in  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  who 
is  the  real  place  of  expiation  and  propitiation. 

In  the  exposition  of  Eom.  25  JoHisr  of  Damascus,  the  last 
Greek  writer  whom  we  shall  quote,  proclaims  the  0.  T.  iXauT^piov 
the  type — 6  rjv,  iKelvo  TO  lXa<TTT]pLov and  the  blood  by  which 

the  people  were  sanctified  a  symbol  of  Christ’s  blood — tov  aLp.aTo<5 
avTov  avpLjSovXov  iKelvo  to  aipixi  to  dytd^ov  tov  Xa6v^^‘^  The  passage 
explains  itself.  Christ  is  the  reality  in  contrast  to  the  0.  T.  type. 
His  blood  made  expiation  for  us  and  sanctified  us. 

Summary  of  the  Greeh  Patristic  Literature 

The  results  of  our  inquiry  among  the  Greek  Fathers  are  briefly 
these : 

1)  Their  exegesis  for  the  Pauline  term  has  its  roots  in  the  0.  T. 

a)  Jesus  Christ  as  IXadrypiov  is  the  reality  of  the  type  in  the 
Holy  of  Holies. 

b)  Jesus  Christ  is  the  fulfilment  of  the  typical  sacrifices  of 
the  0.  T. 

2)  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  treated  by  the  Fathers  quite  gen¬ 
erally  as  wholly  inseparable  from  the  term  IXaarypiov.  Both  are 
intimately  related. 

3)  The  fundamental  content  of  the  term  is  locality,  i.  e.,  the 
special  place  within  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  of  this  Christ  is  the 
reality.  Moreover  it  contains  essentially  the  ideas  of 

a)  expiation,  with  the  removal  of  sin  for  its  object; 

b)  propitiation,  including  as  terminus  ad  quern  man  who 
was  redeemed,  as  terminus  a  quo  God  who  was  reconciled ; 

c)  manifestation  of  divinity. 

4)  The  more  precise  meaning,  then,  is  this : 

a)  as  the  0.  T.  IXacrrypLov  was  the  particular  place  wffiere  ex¬ 
piation  and  propitiation  were  obtained  for  the  Israelites 
by  the  sprinkling  of  blood  upon  the  propitiatory,  so  Christ 
by  His  self-sacrifice  and  in  His  own  blood  became  local¬ 
ized  expiation  and  propitiation  for  all  men; 

88,  209;  cf.  208.  MPG,  88,  245.  ^»^MPG,  95,  465. 


37 


b)  as  the  0.  T.  iXaarrjpiov  was  the  centre  where  the  divine 
presence  manifested  itself,  so  Christ  is  the  place  where  in 
His  divine  person  the  presence  of  the  G-odhead  is  mani¬ 
fested. 

5)  ‘lAacrr^ptov  is  quite  distinct  from  tAao-/xo?.  AVhile  the  latter 
indicates  the  means  of  expiation  and  propitiation,  the  former  has 
reference  to  locality.  In  the  sanctuary  of  Christ’s  own  person  as 
lXa<TT^ptov,  cAaa/xos  was  achieved  through  the  sacrifice  in  His  own 
blood.  Thus  all  the  0.  T.  elements  combined  find  their  fulfilment 
in  Christ  the  reality. 

In  view  of  the  confusion  in  modern  exegesis  of  Rom.  iii,  25, 
the  unanimous  consistency  of  Greek  patristic  interpretation  is 
indeed  remarkable.  And,  in  determining  the  source  and  definite  ■ 
signification  of  the  Pauline  term,  such  uniformity  is  a  weighty 
argument  which  may  not  be  ignored. 

3.  IN  THE  LATIN  FATHERS 

In  Latin  patristic  literature  Rom.  iii,  25  occurs  but  rarely,  nor 
do  the  Fathers  who  cite  the  verse  furnish  us  with  such  exhaustive 
and  complete  material  as  is  the  case  with  the  Greeks. 

Hilary  of  Poitiers  adverts  to  the  Pauline  term  in  his  com¬ 
mentary  on  Ps.  LXiv^  4-5.  The  human  race,  under  the  yoke  of 
philosophical  errors,  cried  to  God  for  enlightenment,  knowing  that 
God  must  be  placated  for  past  sins  and  crimes  of  impiety  through 
Christ — scientes  tandem  vetera  delicta  sua  et  antiquae  impietatis 
crimina  Deo  propitianda  esse  per  Christum”.  This  light  they 
obtained  through  St.  Paul  and  St.  John.  From  the  former,  when 
he  says :  Quern  proposuit  Deus  placationem  per  fidem  in  suo 
sanguine  ” ;  from  the  latter,  when  he  writes  of  Christ :  Ipse  est 
placatio  pro  peccatis  nostris  ”.  Then  Hilary  puts  the  question : 

Qui  tandem  propitiationis  effectus  est  ”  ?  He  answers  by  quoting 
V.  5 :  Beatus  quern  elegisti  et  assumpsisti,  ut  inhabitet  in  taber- 
naculis  tuis.^®®  Thus  the  effect  is  shown  to  consist  in  the  peace 
and  bliss  of  heaven. 

Elsewhere  Flilary  speaks  of  Christ’s  sacrifice  which  reconciled 
us  to  God,  redeemed  us,  and  took  away  our  sins — ^^est  enim  Hni- 
genitus  Dei  films  Deus  Verbum  redemptio  nostra,  pax  nostra  in 
cujus  sanguine  reconciliati  Deo  sumus.  .  .  Filins  ipse  pro  peccatis 
nostris  et  propitiatio  et  redemptio  et  deprecatio  est  ”.  Hilary 


9,  415. 


9,  723,  Ps.  CXXIX,  9. 


38 


therefore  found  in  placatio  and  propitiatio  ’’  the  elements  of 
expiation  by  which  sin  was  removed,  and  propitiation  by  which 
God  was  reconciled.  Sin,  God,  and  man  are  then  the  components 
of  the  two  terms. 

Who  is  He,  Ambrose  asks,  of  whom  it  is  written :  Ecce  Agnus 
Dei,  ecce  qui  tollit  peccatum  mundi.  .  .  Quern  proposuit  Deus 
propitiatorem  per  fidem  in  sanguine  ipsius Ho  other  than  the 
Verbum  Dei,  the  same  who  tells  Moses :  Impones  propitiatorium 
super  arcam  desuper  .  .  .  et  innotescam  tibi  inde,  et  loquar  tibi 
desuper  It  is  noteworthy  that  Ambrose  translates  pro¬ 

pitiatorem  ;  yet  he  identifies  Christ  as  propitiator  with  the  0.  T. 

propitiatorium  The  reference  to  the  0.  T.  type  hinges  on  its 
special  quality  as  the  place  where  God  made  Himself  known  and 
manifested  His  presence.  Again,  Ambrose  explains  that  Christ 
needed  not  propitiation,  but  is  Himself  propitiatio  omnium  .  .  , 
et  ipse  est  universorum  redemptio  His  redeeming  blood  had 
bhis  effect :  “  non  quaeritur  ergo  propitiatio,  aut  redemptio  singu- 
lorum;  quia  omnium  pretium  sanguis  est  Christi,  quo  nos  redemit 
Dominus  Jesus,  qui  solus  Patrem  reconciliavit  Mention  must 
be  made  that  the  distinction  between  IXacrrypLov  and  IXaafio^  in  the 
Greek  Fathers  is  not  identical  with  propitiator  and  pro- 
piatio  ”  of  Ambrose. 

According  to  Jerome  Christ  is  the  real  and  true  ‘^^propitia- 
torium^k  Commenting  on  the  two  “  propitiatoria ’’  seen  by  the 
prophet  Ezechiel  Jerome  applies  both  to  Christ:  Propitiatorium 
minus  est,  quando  exinanivit  se  formam  servi  accipiens,  et  pro- 
pitiatorium  majus,  quando  recepit  gloriam,  quam  habuit  apud 
Patrem  antequam  mundus  fieret’k^®^  This  allegory  implies  1) 
that  Christ  is  the  H.  T.  propitiatory  in  His  humanity  as  well  as 
in  His  divinity,  2)  equality  with  the  Father. 

With  Augustine  propitiation  can  be  effected  only  through  sac¬ 
rifice.  “  Quid  est,  fieri  Deum  impietati  propitium  ?  id  est  igno- 
scentem  et  veniam  dantem.  Sed  ut  Dei  venia  impetretur,  pro¬ 
pitiatio  fit  per  aliquod  sacrificium  Such  is  the  propitiation 
wrought  by  Christ  in  His  incarnation — ^^hoc  holocaustum  obtulit 
Deo  .  .  .  et  impietates  nostrae  propitiatae  sunt’k^°°  Making  use 
of  similar  terms  Augustine  teaches  that  Christ’s  blood  expiated 
for  all  sins  and  redeemed  mankind,  and  here  he  says  emphatically : 

14,  577-578,  De  Fuga  Saec.,  Ill,  16. 

MPL.,  14,  1161,  Ps.  XLVIII,  10. 

^»»MPL,  25,  422,  In  Ez.  XLIII. 


MPL,  36,  777,  Ps.  LXIV,  4. 


39 


Quae  est  ista  propitiatio,  nisi  sacrificium  ?  Et  quod  est  sacrifi- 
cium,  nisi  quod  pro  nobis  oblatum  est?  Sanguis  innocens  fusus 
delevit  omnia  peccata  nocentium;  pretium  tantum  datum  redemit 
omnes  captives  de  manu  captiv antis  inimici  In  another  pas¬ 

sage  Augustine  explains  propitiation  as  placationem  qua 
flectat  Deum  pro  peccatis  Thus  God,  man,  and  sin  are  included 
as  objects  of  propitiatio Twice  Augustine  renders  the 
Pauline  word  by  propitiatorium  without,  however,  offering  any 
explanation.  This  would  suggest  that  he  saw  in  St.  PauPs  use  of 
the  term  an  obvious  reference  to  the  0.  T.  propitiatory  as  a  type 
of  Christ. 

Gregory  the  Great  refers  Eom.  in,  25  to  the  propitiatory  in 
the  Holy  of  Holies :  Quid  est  quod  in  tabernaculo  propitiatorium  , 
fieri  jubetur,  .  .  .  nisi  quod  utraque  Testamenta  ita  sibi  in  Media- 
tore  Dei  et  hominum  congruunt?  Quid  enim  per  propitiatorium 
nisi  ipse  Eedemptor  humani  generis  designatur  This  same 

comparison  is  found  in  another  passage,  but  here  he  quotes  I  Jn. 
II,  2  and  says :  Quid  vero  per  propitiatorium  nisi  incarnatus 
Dominus  figuratur  With  the  Greek  Fathers,  Gregory  con¬ 

siders  Christ  as  the  real  place  of  expiation  and  propitiation.  The 
quotation  of  the  Johannine  use  of  the  abstract  noun  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  Gregory  did  not  distinguish  between  IXaar^piov 
and  tXxi(Tfx6<;. 

Summary  of  the  Latin  Patristic  Literature 

To  recapitulate :  The  Latin  Fathers,  while  not  expressing  them¬ 
selves  with  such  clearness  as  the  Greeks  concerning  the  double 
element,  nevertheless  interpret  the  terms  propitiatio  ''pla- 
catio  ”,  and  deprecatio  as  Christ’s  sacrifice  effecting  expiation 
of  sin,  propitiation  of  God,  and  reconciliation  between  God  and 
man;  ^^propitiatorium”  as  Christ  Himself,  the  antitype  of  the 
“  propitiatorium  ”  in  the  Holy  of  Holies.  Of  special  importance 
are  the  words  of  Augustine  that  propitiatio  ”  is  effected  per 
sacrificium  Meager  as  it  is,  the  Latin  patristic  exegesis  of  St. 
Paul’s  term  shows  acquaintance  with  and  runs  parallel  to  that  of 
the  Greek  Fathers. 


MPL,  37,  1697,  Ps.  CXXIX,  4. 

MPL,  36,  549,  Ps.  XLVITI,  9. 

203  mpl  44,  133,  De  Peccatonim  Meritis  et  Eemissione,  I,  27;  213,  De 
Spir.  et  Lit.  XTII.  MPL,  76,  1191,  TTom.  in  Evang.  IT,  25. 

»®^MPL.  76,  835,  Horn,  in  Ez.  I,  6. 


40 


4.  IN  THE  EXEGESIS  OF  THE  MIDDLE  AGES  DOWN  TO  MODERN 

TIMES 

The  exegesis  of  St.  Paul’s  concept  in  this  period  follows  in  the 
main  that  of  the  patristic  writers.  We  deem  it  best  to  arrange 
the  authors  in  groups  according  to  the  various  interpretations; 
these  fall  into  four  divisions.  TAaorr^ptov  in  Rom.  iii^  25  designates 
1)  Christ  as  the  N.  T.  reality  against  the  type  in  the  Holy  of 
Holies;  2)  Christ  as  expiator  or  propitiator;  3)  the  expiatory  or 
propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Christ;  4)  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  as  a 
means  of  expiation  or  propitiation. 

1.  For  the  first  view  might  be  quoted  more  than  50  authors, 
all  of  whom  explicitly  state  that  Christ  is  the  reality  in  contrast 
to  the  0.  T.  mere  appearance.  This  interpretation  was  quite 
prevalent  during  the  middle  ages  among  Greek  as  well  as  Latin 
writers.  It  will  do  to  mention  Isidore  of  Seville  (636),^®®  Vener¬ 
able  Bede  (735)/®’’  Rabanus  Maurus  (856),^®®  Atto  Yercellensis 
(960)/®®  Oecumenius  (X  cent.)/^®  Theopbylact  (ca.  1100)/^^ 
Rupert  Tuitiensis  (XII  cent.)/^^  and  Sicardus  Cremonensis 
(1215).^^®  Among  the  exegetes  of  the  following  centuries  men¬ 
tion  may  be  made  of  Erasmus  (1536)/^^  Calvin  (1564)/^® 
Grotius  (1645)/^®  Hammond  (1660)/^^  Vitringa  (ca.  1700)/^® 
Burkitt  (1703)/^®  Locke  (1704)/^®  and  Bengel  (1751). 


^®MPL,  83,  311,  In  Ex.  46:  Per  propitlatorium  .  .  .  ipse  Christus  in- 
sinuatur.  MPL,  82,  544,  Etymol.  XV :  Propitiatorium :  quasi  propitiationis 
oratorium. 

“^MPL,  91,  404,  De  Tabern.  I:  Propitiatorium  non  aliud  quam  Dominum 
Salvatorem  .  .  .  designat. 

^®MPL,  108,  414,  In  Lev.  V:  Ipse  [Christus]  est  enim  veriim  et  intelli- 
gibile  propitiatorium. 

^MPL,  134,  777,  Ad  Hebr.:  Propitiatorium  quippe  non  aliud  quam 
Dominum  Salvatorem  .  .  .  designat. 

MPG,  118,  385,  Ad  Rom.:  i}  rov  Kupiou  aap^  ij  TrepiKdXvTrTovffa  r^v 
eavTov  OeoTTjra  iXacrripiov  yeyope  rwv  rjpLeTepojp  dvop,iu)v. 

MPG,  124,  388,  Ad  Rom. :  el  rb  IXacri^piov  rb  vopuKov,  tvttos  ov  tov 
’Xpiarov,  roiavTTjv  elx^v  lcrx^^>  ttoXXw  pidXXov  ^  dXriOeta. 

212  mpl,  167,  702,  In  Ex.  VI:  Propitiatorium  namque  nobis  idem  incar- 
natus  Deus  est,  sed  per  passionem  et  mortem  suam. 

^^^MPL,  213,  224,  Mitrale,  V:  Per  propitiatorium  incarnatus  Dominus 
figuratur. 

Critici  Sacri,  VII,  659.  Opera,  IV,  55. 

Comm,  in  Pauli  Ep,,  28.  Notes  on  N.  T. 

Opera  Theol.  Ill,  697.  Paraphrase  on  Rom.,  305. 

Paraphrase  on  N.  T.,  400.  Gnomon  of  N.  T.,  48-49. 


41 


2.  More  than  25  scholars  favor  the  meaning  expiator,  pro¬ 
pitiator  or  reconciliator;  among  them:  Hapnon  (853)/^^  Abelard 
(1142),“^^  Peter  Blesensis  (ca.  1200)/^“^  Bonaventnre  (1274)/^^ 
Vatablns  (1547)/^®  Estins  (1613)/^'^  and  Parens  (ca.  1650).^^® 
To  these  may  be  added  Tirinns  (1636)/^®  Cornelius  a  Lapide 
(1637)/^°  Menochins  (1655)/^^  and  others  who  render  IXaar^pLov 
by  expiator,  propitiator  or  reconciliator  shading  it  with  the  idea 
of  an  expiating  and  propitiating  victim. 

3.  The  interpretation  of  the  Panline  IXaa-T^pLov  as  expiatory  or 
propitiatory  sacrifice  or  victim  is  proposed  by  at  least  10  com¬ 
mentators,  all  of  them  living  in  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth 
centnry.  Some  are  Calmet,^®^  Koppe/^®  Eisner, Kypke,^^®  and 
Clericns.^^® 

4.  A  few  later  scholars  lean  towards  IXaaryjpLov  as  something 
that  expiates  or  propitiates,  or  as  a  means  of  expiation  or  pro¬ 
pitiation.  This  is  held  by  Stephanns,^^’’  Castalio,^®®  Alting,^^® 
Diodatns  and  others. 

^^MPL,  117,  392,  Ad  Rom.:  Filium  suum  proposuit  Deus  Pater  .  .  . 
propitiatorem  et  reoonciliatorem. 

223  mpL,  178,  833,  Ad  Rom.:  Quern  proposuit  nobis  Deus  Pater  propitia- 
tionem,  id  est,  reconciliatorem. 

®^MPL,  207,  926,  De  Char.,  26:  Deus  Filium  suum  nobis  propitiatorem 
constituit. 

Opera,  III,  401 :  Quern  proposuit  Deus  propitiatorem. 

Critici  Sacri,  VII,  660:  Quern  Deus  .  .  .  decrevit  reconciliatorem. 

Comm,  in  Rom.,  70;  Probabilius  est  hie  acoipi  .  .  .  ut  propitiatorem 
significet  seu  reconciliatorem. 

Opera  Theol.,  88 :  Teneamus  .  .  .  Christum  constitutum  a  Deo  IXacrr-ri- 
ptov,  propitiatorem. 

In  S.  S.  Comm.  IV,  491:  Propitiationem,  id  est,  propitiatorem  vel 
victimam  propitiantem  et  placantem  hominibus  Deum. 

2®o  Comm.  in  S.  S.,  XVIII,  74:  Propitiator,  scilicet,  victima  propitians  et 
placans  Deum  hominibus. 

Comm,  in  S.  S.,  II,  627 :  Propitiationem,  id  est,  propitiatorem,  scilicet 
victimam  propitiantem  et  placantem  Deum  hominibus. 

Comm,  in  V.  et  X.  T.,  VIII,  66 :  Victima  expiationis. 

838  ]^  T.  Graece,  IV,  74:  Victima  expiatoria. 

=‘^^Observ.  Sacrae,  II,  20:  Expiatorium  sacrifioium. 

^“Observ.  Sacrae,  I,  161:  Sacrificium  expiatorium. 

*^®Epi8t.  S.  Apostolorum,  30:  Piacularis  victima. 

“^Critici  Sacri,  VII,  665:  Placamentum. 

Interprete  Biblia,  214:  Placamentum. 

Comm,  in  X  Capita  ad  Rom.,  69 :  Placamentum. 

Annotations  on  the  Bible,  III:  Means  of  expiation  and  reconciliation. 


42 


The  traditional  Greek  patristic  interpretation  of  Christ  as  the 
reality  of  the  0.  T.  type  was  therefore  preserved  and  copied  more 
generally  than  any  other.  Some  exegetes  admit  the  double  ele¬ 
ment  of  expiation  and  propitiation  and  others  select  either.  The 
idea  of  sacrifice  is  considered  essential  to  the  term. 

Recapitulation  and  Conclusion  of  the  Historical  Part 

Having  traced  the  history  of  the  Pauline  IXaaTjjpiov  through  all 
its  stages  we  are  in  a  position  to  pass  judgment  on  the  net  results 
and  their  value. 

Undoubtedly  the  outstanding  feature  of  the  historical  investi¬ 
gation  is  the  fact  that  at  all  times  the  majority  of  scholars  inter¬ 
preted  the  Pauline  term  in  Pom.  iii,  25  as  designating  Christ  the 
antitype  of  the  0.  T.  IXao-rrjpiov.  In  Him  was  realized  all  which 
the  type  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  symbolized.  Patristic  interpre¬ 
tation,  the  Greek  particularly,  refers  to  the  0.  T.  iXacr-rqpiov  as  the 
special  locality  where,  by  sprinkling  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering, 
expiation  was  made  for  the  sins  of  the  Israelites  and  propitiation 
of  God  was  effected,  and  where  His  presence  was  manifested. 
While  some  modern  commentators  explain  the  O.T.  lXa<TTr)pLov  as 
describing  a  locality,  it  was  seen  that  present  day  exegesis  is  by 
no  means  agreed  as  to  the  essential  presence  of  the  elements  of 
expiation  and  propitiation. 

Two  important  questions  now  present  themselves  for  solution. 
1)  Whence  comes  the  word  iXaurr^piov  with  its  notion  of  locality 
as  interpreted  by  patristic  writers?  2)  Are  the  elements  of  expia¬ 
tion,  propitiation,  sacrifice,  and  divine  presence  essentially  and 
necessarily  included  in  the  current  meaning  of  iXdaKedOai  and  its 
derivatives,  or  are  they  peculiar  to  the  koivt]  SLdXeKTo<;?  In  order 
to  answer  these  questions  satisfactorily  an  investigation  of  profane 
as  well  as  biblical  literature  is  necessary. 


PART  II— EXEGETICAL 


CHAPTER  III 


Historico-liteeary  Investigation  of  IAA2KE:S0AI  and  its 

Derivatives 

I.  In  the  Hellenic  World 

Greek  patristic  literature,  although  correctly  placed  in  a  class 
by  itself,  does  not  constitute  a  linguistic  break,  but  must  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  a  continuation  of  the  literary  past,  namely,  the  litera¬ 
ture  of  the  classic  Greek  world.  This  past,  therefore,  may  not  be 
ignored  and,  in  order  to  establish  precisely  the  meaning  of  St. 
Pauhs  term,  we  must  examine  the  root-verb  IXdaKeadaL  and  its  • 
cognates  from  its  earliest  usage  in  extant  Greek  literature.  From 
modern  authors  we  gather  some  general  ideas  of  what  we  may 
expect.  Thus  C.  M.  Kerr  ^  writes  that  the  root  ideas  of  the 
term  imply  that  he  who  propitiates  feels  himself  in  some  manner 
to  be  lacking  or  at  fault,  and  that  the  favour  of  him  who  is  pro¬ 
pitiated  is  worth  the  gaining”.  In  other  words,  he  who  pro¬ 
pitiates  desires  previously  to  expiate  for  his  faults  in  order  to 
effect  reconciliation.  The  expiation  of  sin  among  the  Greeks,  as 
A.  Fairbanks^  very  significantly  says,  must  be  considered  from 
these  three  angles:  ^^(a)  the  purification  from  the  taint  of  evil, 
(b)  the  allaying  of  Divine  anger  caused  by  intentional  or  unin¬ 
tentional  disregard  of  what  is  due  to  the  gods,  and  (c)  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  a  man  who  has  transgressed  some  moral  law  to  harmony 
with  the  gods.  The  emphasis  on  these  three  points  of  view  varies, 
but  from  Homer  onward  they  are  all  three  present”.  Hence  in 
examining  profane  examples  our  special  attention  must  be  directed 
to  the  presence  or  absence  of  any  of  these  three  points. 

Homer,  in  the  lengthy  narrative  on  the  abduction  of  Chryseis, 
the  daughter  of  Chryses,  uses  forms  of  IXacrKeaBm,  which  indicate 
expiatory  and  propitiatory  notions.  Chryses  comes  to  ransom  his 
daughter  held  captive  by  Agamemnon,  but  his  proffered  ransom  is 
not  accepted,  neither  is  his  daughter  returned.  Chryses  suppli¬ 
cates  the  aid  of  Apollo  who  is  angered  at  the  conduct  of  Aga¬ 
memnon.  The  god  sends  destructive  arrows  into  Agamemnon’s 

^ERE,  X,  393,  art.  Propitiation  (Introductory  and  Biblical). 

*ERE,  V,  651,  art.  Expiation  and  Atonement  (Greek). 


45 


46 


army,  a  deadly  pestilence  visits  his  people,  and  countless  numbers 
perish.  Seeking  to  learn  the  cause  of  these  punishments  Aga¬ 
memnon  has  recourse  to  Calchas  the  seer.  The  latter  informs  him 
that  Apollo  is  angry  because  he  has  abducted  Chryseis  and  refuses 
to  return  her  to  her  father.  If  Agamemnon  would  have  the  afflic¬ 
tions  cease  he  must  return  Chryseis  and  offer  up  a  sacred  heca¬ 
tomb  for,  only  after  we  have  IXao-adfxevoL  may  we  prevail  upon 
the  god — TOT€  Kev  jXLv  iXadddfxevoi  TreTTLOoLfxev  We  are  told  that 
Agamemnon  follows  the  advice  of  Calchas.  A  sacred  hecatomb 
is  put  on  the  ship  with  the  maid,  and  Palides  is  asked  to  perform 
the  sacred  rites  so  that  having  brought  sacrifices  you  may  tXdacreaL 
the  far-darting  Apollo  for  us — 6(f)p’  cKdepyov  iXdxra-eai  lepd 

peia<;’\^  By  sacrifices  Palides  is  to  atone  for  Agamemnon^s 
crime  and  to  procure  thus  the  good  graces  of  Apollo.  At  home 
Agamemnon  orders  the  army  to  he  purified  and  chosen  hecatombs 
of  bulls  and  goats  to  he  sacrificed  to  Apollo.^  Chryses  is  returned 
to  her  father,  the  sacred  hecatomb  is  offered  in  order  that  ^‘^we 
may  tXaadpieaOa  the  lord  Apollo — IXadopeada  ava/cra’^.®  The  afflic¬ 
tions  cease;  a  banquet  is  prepared  for  the  god  and  the  soldiers; 
and  all  day  long  youths  sang  and  Oebv  IXoiatkovtoJ 

In  this  narrative  the  several  forms  of  tXda-Kea-Om  embrace  not 
only  the  element  of  propitiation,  which  is  certainly  the  most  con¬ 
spicuous,  but  likewise  that  of  expiation.  By  abducting  the  daugh¬ 
ter  of  Chryses,  Agamemnon  incurs  the  anger  of  the  god.  Apollo 
punishes  the  entire  army  and  refuses  to  be  reconciled  until  the 
guilt  of  Agamemnon  is  atoned  for.  In  order  to  make  expiation  and 
propitiation  Agamemnon  must  sacrifice.  Accordingly  the  verb 
tXdaKeaOm  itself  contains  the  elements  of  expiation  and  propitiation 
brought  about  through  sacrifice. 

The  sons  of  Athens  annually  IXdovTat  their  god  in  a  sump¬ 
tuous  temple  by  means  of  bulls  and  lambs — iv  tt'lovl  \n]<X  .  .  .  ravpoLdi 
Kal  dpveioi^  IXdovrm  .  .  .  TrepLTeXXopievwv  iviavrcHv  This  act  must 
have  been  a  specific  ceremony  apart  from  the  other  frequent  sacri¬ 
ficial  offerings  to  the  gods.  As  such  it  may  be  accepted  as  a 
ceremony  by  which  through  sacrifices  the  people  hoped  to  expiate 
their  faults  and  wrong-doings  of  the  past  year,  to  propitiate  the 
god,  and  thus  obtain  his  favor  for  the  ensuing  year.  It  is  rel- 

=*  II.,  I,  100. 

Ml.,  I,  147. 

'‘Cf.  II.,  I,  313-316. 

« II.,  I,  444. 


"II.,  I,  472. 

«I1.,  II,  549-551. 


47 


evant  also  that  the  sacrifices  are  affixed  to  a  particular  place,  i.  e., 
the  temple,  the  special  abode  of  the  deity. 

Hector  returns  from  the  battle  field  to  Troy,  there  to  assemble 
the  Trojan  women  in  the  temple  of  Minerva  in  order  to  supplicate 
the  aid  of  the  goddess  in  the  fight  with  the  Greeks.  Hot  finding 
her  at  home.  Hector  inquires  of  a  maid  whether  his  wife  also  has 
gone  ^Ho  the  temple  where  the  women  IXdaKovTm  the  dreaded 
goddess — e?  ^AOrjvacr]'?  evOa  .  .  .  heivrjv  Oeov  iXacrKovTUL 

The  meaning  of  IXadKovrai  in  this  passage  would  seem  to  be 
bestowal  of  the  goddess’  favor.  But,  besides,  the  Trojans  seem 
to  fear  her  wrath  in  the  conflict  because  of  misdeeds,  and  therefore 
they  repair  to  the  temple  to  expiate  their  faults  and  to  placate 
the  goddess.  Again,  these  acts  are  performed  in  the  temple  and 
they  offer  the  goddess  a  most  beautiful  robe  with  the  promise’ 
that,  if  they  conquer  the  Greeks,  they  will  offer  as  sacrifice  twelve 
yearling  heifers  that  have  never  borne  the  yoke.^® 

Hestor  sends  his  son  Telemachus  on  an  important  mission  to 
Menelaus  at  Sparta.  Before  the  departure  Hestor  commands  the 
sacrifice  of  a  heifer  ^^so  that  we  may  IXdacroix  Pallas  the  first  of 
the  gods — d(}>p’  TOi  Trpdinara  Oeiov  IXdacyop!'  ’A6yv7]v  The  inten¬ 
tion  probably  is  that  of  seeking  the  favor  of  the  goddess  so  that 
the  son’s  journey  may  be  without  mishap.  But,  at  all  events,  we 
notice  that  sacrifice  enters  into  the  notion  of  IXddKeo-Oai. 

We  may  conclude  from  this  that  Homer  used  forms  of  iXdaKeaOm 
for  both  to  expiate  and  to  propitiate,  and  these  results  were  sought 
by  means  of  sacrifice  generally  offered  in  a  sacred  place.  Ho 
example  of  any  substantive  or  adjective  form  can  be  adduced. 

The  situation  in  Herodotus  (443  B.  C.)  is  similar.  He  relates 
how  Croesus  sent  messengers  to  the  various  oracles  consulting  them 
about  the  manner  of  proceeding  against  his  enemies.  Of  all  the 
answers  only  that  of  the  Delphic  oracle  was  accepted  by  Croesus 
who,  accordingly,  IXdo-KeTo  the  god  with  many  sacrifices — Ovaurjcn 
pLeydXrjm  rbv  Iv  AeXcpolcTL  6ebv  IXdaKcro  ”.  The  offerings  consisted 
of  three  thousand  sacrificial  beasts  and  many  gifts  of  gold  and 
silver.^^  At  first  reading  the  act  of  Croesus  can  be  taken  as  one 
of  thanksgiving  only.  But  it  must  also  be  considered  as  an  act 
whereby  the  god’s  favor  is  sought  in  the  coming  difficulties;  neither 
is  the  desire  to  atone  for  any  possilde  misdeeds  entirely  excluded. 

» II.,  VI,  379-380.  “  Od.,  Ill,  419. 

'•’Cf.  11.,  VI,  297-311.  “llist.,  I,  50. 


48 


Important  is  that  all  these  acts  are  procured  only  by  means  of 
sacrifices  and  offerings. 

The  Lacedaemonians  had  suffered  continual  defeat  at  the  hands 
of  the  Tegeans.  The  Delphic  oracle  was  asked  which  one  of  the 
gods  they  must  propitiate — rlva  av  0€wv  IXaaafievoL  in  order  to  pre¬ 
vail  against  the  Tegeans.  The  oracle  ordered  them  to  remove  to 
Sparta  the  bones  of  Orestes,  the  son  of  Agamemnon.^^  Evidently 
the  Lacedaemonians  were  conscious  of  some  guilt  and  anxious  to 
know  how  to  expiate  this  guilt  and  be  again  restored  to  the  god^s 
favor.  Instead  of  the  usual  means  of  expiation  and  propitiation 
which  is  sacrifice,  we  have  here  as  equivalent  the  restoration  of  the 
bones  of  Orestes. 

According  to  Scythian  tradition  four  implements  of  gold  —  a 
plough,  a  yoke,  a  battle-axe,  and  a  drinking  cup — fell  from  the  sky. 
Three  brothers  were  at  that  time  ruling  the  land.  The  two  oldest 
went  to  pick  up  the  instruments,  but  these  took  fire  and  blazed. 
When  Colaxais,  the  youngest,  approached,  the  flames  disappeared; 
he  picked  up  the  instruments  and  carried  them  into  his  home, 
where  they  were  carefully  guarded  and  honored.  Annually  the 
Scythians  come  and  propitiate  with  great  sacrifices — Ovair^ai  fieydXrjaL 
IXadKOfxevoL  ixerep'^ovrai  dva  Trdv  ero?  This  annual  ceremony  must 
have  been  intended  as  an  atonement  for  the  guilt  of  the  two  older 
brothers,  and  the  good  graces  of  the  divinely  worshipped  golden 
implements  were  obtained  through  sacrifices  at  the  place  where 
they  were  guarded  and  honored. 

Pheidippides,  an  Athenian  by  birth,  was  sent  to  Sparta.  On  his 
return  he  related  how  on  the  way  he  met  the  god  Pan,  who  bade 
him  ask  the  Athenians  why  they  neglected  him  who  had  always 
been  kindly  disposed  towards  them.  Believing  in  the  truth  of  this 
report,  the  Athenians  erected  a  temple  to  Pan  and  propitiated 
him  yearly  with  sacrifices  and  a  torch  race — ISpvaavTo  .  .  .  navo? 

tpov,  Kal  avTov  a7ro  ravriq^  ayyeAiTy?  OvcTLrjaL  lireTerjaL  koL  XapiTraSi 

lXd(TKovTaL^\^^  Thus  they  strove  to  make  good  their  past  neglect 
and  to  secure  the  future  favor  of  Pan.  The  ceremonies  consisted 
principally  in  the  sacrifices  offered  in  his  temple.  Expiation  and 
propitiation  with  the  sacrificial  notion  clearly  appear. 

In  answer  to  an  inquiry  of  the  Delphians  concerning  the  safety 
of  the  Greeks,  the  oracle  bade  them  pray  to  the  winds  who  would 
give  Greece  good  service.  In  gratitude  the  Delphians  raised  an 


13 


Hist.,  I,  67. 


14 


Hist.,  IV,  7. 


15 


Hist.,  VI,  105. 


49 


altar  to  the  winds — roto-t  dve/xoto-t  worshipped  them  with  sac¬ 

rifices  —  OvdLrjcrL  o'(/)€as  ixeTiftaav,  and  even  “  vvv  TOV<i  avifxov^i  Ikda- 
Kovrai’^^^  This  propitiation  is  the  fruit  of  sacrifice  at  a  special 
place,  the  altar. 

While  these  references  do  not  always  clearly  allude  to  the  notion 
of  expiation,  it  is  patently  presupposed.  When  propitiation  is 
made  and  reconciliation  brought  about,  it  shows  previous  con¬ 
sciousness  of  a  need  to  atone  for  misdeeds  so  as  not  to  lose  the 
favor  of  the  gods  or  those  honored  as  gods.  The  conclusion  is 
warranted  that  in  Herodotus  the  notions  of  sacrifice  and  pro¬ 
pitiation  are  quite  manifest  while  that  of  expiation  is  only  in¬ 
ferred.  TAao-T'^ptoi/  as  adjective  or  noun  is  not  found  in  Herodotus. 

Xenophon  (401  B.  C.)  relates  how  Cyrus,  preparatory  to 
moving  his  army,  sacrificed  to  the  gods  in  hope  that  they  would 
lend  aid  in  leading,  advising,  and  assisting  in  the  conflict.  Im¬ 
mediately  upon  arriving  at  his  destination  he  hastened  ^Ho  pro¬ 
pitiate  the  earth  by  libations  and  the  gods  by  sacrifices — yrjv  IXdo-KeTo 
XoaU  Kal  Oeovq  Ovaim-i  Doubting  the  veracity  of  the  oracle  at 
Delphi,  Croesus  consulted  it  several  times.  His  incredulity  con¬ 
stituted  an  affront  to  Apollo.  To  make  expiation  for  this  and  to 
allay  his  anger  Croesus  sent  to  the  oracle  numerous  votive  offer¬ 
ings,  much  silver,  and  ordered  very  many  sacrifices — rroAXa  .  .  . 
TrefXTTwv  dva67),imTa  xpv<Tdf  TroAAa  S’  dpyvpd,  Trap-TToAAa  8e  Ovcav  eAAao-a/XTyv 
TTore  avTov  In  these  examples  the  fundamental  elements  at¬ 
tached  to  the  root  of  {i$)  cXdaKeaOaL  are  evident.  It  must  be  added 
that  the  word  IXaar^pLov  is  not  used  by  Xenophon. 

Apollonius  of  Ehodes  (200  B.C.)  tells  us  how  Mopsus  the 
seer  directs  Aeson’s  son  to  go  up  to  the  temple  on  the  hill  Dindy- 
mum,  there  to  propitiate  the  mother  (Ehea)  of  all  the  blessed 
gods — iXa^OucrOm  pLrjTepa  avpiTrdvTMV  pxiKdpoiV  The  act  of  the  youth 

is  to  be  taken  not  merely  as  worship  of  the  goddess  but  also  as 
propitiatory.  It  is  performed  in  the  temple  and,  while  the  means 
are  not  mentioned,  we  must  assume  sacrifice  or  offering  of  some 
sort.  Among  the  scholia  to  Apollonius  of  Ehodes  there  occurs  a 
word  which  brings  us  in  closer  contact  with  the  IXaaTi^pLov  question, 
for  we  meet  a  form  of  the  adjective.  In  explanation  of  Xo}<f>^La  Upd, 
the  scholiast  says  rovriaTtv  e^LXouTTijpui  Kat  KaTaTravari^pLa  rr/? 


VIT,  17S. 

”  Cyr.,  Ill,  3,  22. 
«Cyr.,  VII,  2.  19. 
Argon  anti  ca,  1,  1093. 

4 


50 


o/oy^5  ”  i.  e.;,  sacrifices  that  brought  relief,  namely,  expiatory 
(sacrifices)  and  those  appeasing  the  anger  (of  the  gods).  Here 
also  the  two  fundamental  elements  are  contained  although  the  ex¬ 
piatory  notion  is  more  prominent.  Is  the  appearance  of  such  a 
similar  form  to  the  substantive  at  this  late  period  only  incidental 
or  is  it,  perhaps,  to  be  attributed  to  the  influence  of  a  source  which 
we  must  yet  investigate? 

In  Plutarch  (80  A.  D.)  we  read  that  Androgeos,  son  of  King 
Minos  of  Crete,  was  treacherously  murdered  within  the  confines  of 
Attica.  Angered  by  this  deed  Minos  sought  to  avenge  the  death 
of  his  son.  He  harassed  the  Atticans  and  even  heaven  sent  pes¬ 
tilence  to  the  people  and  barrenness  upon  their  land.  Conse¬ 
quently  the  inhabitants  consulted  their  god  who  assured  them,  if 
they  appeased  Minos  and  became  reconciled  to  him — IXaaaixivoLs  tov 
Mtvoi  Kal  SiaXXayelo-Ly  the  evils  would  abate.  Wherefore  they  agreed 
to  send  Minos  a  tribute  of  seven  youths  and  seven  maidens  every 
ninth  year.^^  The  guilt  of  the  murder  of  the  king’s  son  demanded 
expiation.  This  was  carried  out  by  sending  the  youths  and 
maidens  as  offerings  to  Minos;  thus  the  latter  was  propitiated  and 
reconciliation  brought  about  between  the  king  and  the  Atticans. 

In  Plutarch  is  found  another  characteristic  development  of  the 
root  of  IXdaKeo-OaL  in  profane  Greek.  It  is  the  substantive  iXaafio^ 
and  its  use,  perhaps,  is  not  entirely  accidental.  He  relates  that 
Athens  was  agitated  by  the  Cylonian  pollution  caused  by  the  unjust 
murders  of  Cylon  and  his  followers.  (Superstitious  fears  and 
strange  appearances  were  alarming  the  people  and  the  seers  de¬ 
clared  that  the  usual  sacrifices  indicated  defilements  of  guilt  which 
demanded  purifications.  The  Athenians  summoned  Epimenides  of 
Phaestus,  a  wise  man,  w^ho  brought  immediate  succor.  Most  im¬ 
portant  was  that  by  iXaafxoU  and  purifications  —  to  8e  fxeyLarov, 
iXacrjjLOLs  run  Kal  KaOapjjbol^; — he  cleansed  the  city,  made  it  heedful  of 
Justice,  and  more  inclined  to  concord.^^  To  kill  Cylon  and  his 
followers  at  the  altar  of  Athene  was  an  insult  to  the  goddess  de¬ 
manding  expiation  and  reconciliation.  Therefore  IXaafioU  ex¬ 
presses  the  means  made  use  of  to  these  ends.  Doubtless  they  were 
sacrifices  or  offerings  at  the  altar  or  the  temple  of  the  goddess. 
Camillus,  on  setting  out  against  the  Veii,  had  vowed,  if  successful, 
to  consecrate  one-tenth  of  the  spoils  to  the  Delphian  god.  After 
his  victory  he  neglected  to  make  good  that  promise.  Later  on  he 

^iSchol.  Argonaut.,  Ed.  Bnmck,  II,  165. 

Theseus,  I,  15.  ==*  Solon,  XII,  5. 


51 


referred  the  matter  to  the  seers  who  announced  that  ‘‘the  anger 
of  the  gods  demanded  IXaxrjxov  and  thanksgivings — ihqviv  IXao-iiov 
Kol  x<^p(-o-TrjpLoiv  SeopevTjv By  not  keeping  his  vow  Camillus  in¬ 
curred  the  anger  of  the  gods.  To  remove  this  guilt,  expiation  was 
to  he  made  before  he  might  hope  to  propitiate  the  anger  of  the 
gods.  The  IXcurpiov  hints  at  the  means  employed;  what  they  were, 
Plutarch  does  not  say,  but  we  may  safely  understand  sacrifices  or 
offerings.  Pausanias  had  raped  a  Byzantine  virgin  and  then  killed 
her.  After  this  outrage  he  had  no  peace  of  mind.  In  his  sleep  he 
frequently  heard  a  voice  telling  him  to  go  and  atone  for  his  crime — ■ 
/Salve,  dcrcrov  •  fiaXa  rot  KaKov  dvSpdaLV  vfSpL'?.  Bepairing  to  the 

psychopompeion  at  Heraclea  he  recalled  the  soul  of  the  girl  by 
tAacTjLtots  and  by  sacrifices  to  the  dead — tXaapiols  tkjl  kuI  yoat?.  She 
foretold  that  in  punishment  for  his  crime  he  would  have  to  die.^‘‘ 
Here  we  see  that  by  means  of  sacrifices  Pausanias  made  expiation 
and  propitiation;  yet  the  penalty  of  death  remained. 

Plutarch’s  verb  and  noun  usages  of  IXdaKeaOaL  include  the  element 
of  expiation  and  that  of  propitiation;  the  means  were  sacrifices  or 
offerings  at  a  special  place.  Of  interest  is  the  substantive  tAacr/xo?, 
whose  signification  must  be  that  of  means  of  expiation  and  pro¬ 
pitiation. 

Summary 

Briefly  summarized  the  study  of  profane  Greek  literature  has 
shown  that  IXda-KeaOai  means  not  only  to  propitiate  hut  also  to  ex¬ 
piate;  these  two  notions  are  inseparably  connected  with  the  root. 
Ordinarily  these  acts  of  expiation  and  propitiation  were  produced 
by  means  of  sacrifice  or  offering  in  a  temple  or  some  other  sacred 
place.  With  Fairbanks  it  may  be  said  that  the  expiation  of  sin 
consisted  first,  in  setting  right  one’s  attitude  toward  the  gods ; 
secondly,  in  appeasing  the  Divine  anger”,  which  signifies  that 
when  profane  writers  employed  the  term  IXdcrKeaOaL  and  its  cog¬ 
nates  they  had  reference  to  the  act  of  expiating  sin  and  of  pro¬ 
pitiating  the  anger  of  the  gods. 

Of  paramount  importance  is  the  fact  that  in  profane  Greek  we 
find  no  example  of  the  substantive  iXaarypiov.  TAatr/xo?,  which  sig¬ 
nifies  the  means  of  expiation  as  well  as  propitiation,  is  employed 
only  in  later  Greek  literature,  while  the  adjective  c^tAao-r^pto?  is 
found  in  the  scholia  of  a  late  writer. 

*■'  Camillus,  VII,  5.  Mor.,  2,  555,  C. 

*“ERE,  V,  653,  art..  Expiation  and  Atonement  (Greek). 


52 


Corollary 

We  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  in  the  Greek  religious 
world  of  thought  IXdaKecrOaL  is  a  terminus  technicus  for  the  re¬ 
storation  of  the  natural  relation,  especially  between  an  offended  god 
and  the  offending  party.  The  fundamental  meaning  of  this  tech¬ 
nical  term  was  found  to  embrace  three  elements :  a)  propitiation 
on  the  part  of  the  one  offended,  b)  removal  or  forgiveness  of  the 
offence,  c)  offering  or  sacrifice  as  the  means  of  accomplishing 
expiation  and  propitiation.  The  test  for  the  correctness  of  this 
analysis  is  furnished  by  other  instances  in  Greek  literature.  There 
are  many  examples  in  which  the  process  of  reconciliation  between 
the  offended  god  and  sinful  man  by  means  of  offering  or  sacrifice 
is  described  without  the  use  of  IXda-KeadaL  and  its  cognates.  A  few 
will  suffice  to  illustrate. 

We  read  in  Homer  that  Aegisthus,  after  seducing  Clytemnestra, 
the  wife  of  Agamemnon,  led  her  away  to  his  own  palace.  Aegis¬ 
thus  felt  that  this  act  w^as  not  so  much  an  offence  against  Aga¬ 
memnon,  but  more  so  a  sin  against  the  gods  whose  anger  he  also 
feared.  Hence  he  sought  to  receive  forgiveness  for  his  sin  and  to 
regain  the  favor  of  the  gods  ‘^by  offering  many  a  victim’s  thigh 
upon  the  sacred  altars  of  the  gods  and  by  hanging  within  their 
temples  many  a  gift  of  ornaments  wrought  in  gold — iroWd  5c  firjpia 
Krje  Oewv  lepol^;  eirl  /?a)/xot9,  TroAAa  5’  dyaXpcar^  dviiif/ev,  vcpdapbaTa  re 
Xpvaov  re  . 

In  Od.  IV  it  is  related  that  Menelaus  was  unwillingly  detained 
on  the  shores  of  Egypt  because  ^“^he  had  not  brought  the  sacrifice 
of  chosen  hecatombs  as  the  gods  required”  (352-353).  For  this 
neglect  the  gods  punish  Menelaus  by  not  permitting  favorable 
winds  for  his  return  journey.  To  the  question  of  a  goddess  why 
he  does  not  depart,  he  replies :  “  I  must  have  sinned  against  the 
immortal  dwellers  of  the  high  heaven — /ccAAw  dOavdrov^;  aXireaBai,  dl 
ovpavdv  evpw  exovcriv  ”  (377-378).  The  goddess  again  tells  him 
this  punishment  is  being  inflicted  because  he  should  have  offered 
first  the  accustomed  sacrifice  to  Jove  and  the  other  gods”  (472- 
473).  He  resolves  therefore  to  atone  for  his  neglect  in  order  to 
remove  the  anger  of  the  gods  and  to  secure  favorable  winds.  He 
offered  the  prescribed  sacrifices  and  appeased  the  anger  of  the 
gods — epe^a  reXrjeaaa^  eKaropijSa^s  .  .  .  KarcTrawa  Beoiv  yoAor  ”  (582- 
583).  In  this  narrative  it  is  obvious  that  Menelaus  had  to  expiate 


2«Od.,  Ill,  273-274. 


53 


for  his  utter  disregard  of  the  usual  sacrifices  to  the  gods  before  he 
could  hope  to  propitiate  their  incurred  anger  and  to  obtain  their 
good  favor.  He  accomplished  all  by  bringing  the  necessary 
sacrifices. 

Ulysses,  being  shipwrecked  with  his  companions,  found  refuge 
on  the  island  of  the  Suu.  A  beautiful  herd  of  cattle,  which  were 
held  sacred  and  under  the  protection  of  the  sun  god,  grazed  on 
the  island.  Ulysses  strictly  forbade  his  companions  to  slay  any 
of  the  herd  for  the  oracle  had  foretold  that  evil  would  befall  them 
if  they  did.  When  the  supplies  were  diminished,  unmindful  of  the 
threat  the  companions  slaughtered  the  best  of  the  herd.  They, 
thought  to  allay  the  anger  of  the  god  by  vowing  that,  after  re¬ 
turning  to  Ithaca,  ^“^they  would  build  to  the  sun  god  a  sumptuous 
temple  and  endow  it  with  many  votive  offerings^’  (Od.  346- 
347).  The  sun  god  had  been  offended,  so  much  so  that  the  offence 
permitted  of  no  expiation,  neither  was  the  anger  of  the  god  pro¬ 
pitiated.  In  punishment,  as  the  narrative  concludes,  their  ship 
on  the  return  voyage  was  cast  upon  the  rocks  and  all  perished  but 
Ulysses.  Although  the  evil  doers  are  here  not  successful  in  their 
wish  to  expiate  their  guilt  and  to  propitiate  the  anger  of  the  god, 
the  general  belief  is  evident  that  they  could  do  so  by  erecting  the 
temple  and  endowing  it  with  votive  offerings. 

In  Hist.  VI,  138-140  Herodotus  relates  how  the  Pelasgians  car¬ 
ried  off  a  large  number  of  Athenian  women  and  kept  them  at 
Lemnos  as  concubines.  Fearing  that  the  Athenian  youths  would 
eventually  overpower  their  own  children,  the  Pelasgians  killed  the 
Athenian  women  and  their  sons.  Punishment  for  this  act  im¬ 
mediately  followed.  The  lands  refused  to  bring  forth  fruits,  the 
Pelasgian  population  decreased,  and  their  flocks  and  herds  in¬ 
creased  more  slowly  than  before.  Sorely  pressed  they  sent  men  to 
Delphi  and  the  oracle  informed  them  that  they  must  make  what¬ 
ever  satisfaction  the  Athenians  demand  — A0rjvaLOL<TL  iSixa?  ScBovai 
ravra?,  Ta<s  av  avToV kOrjvaloi  SiKa^crt.  They  required  the  Pelasgians 
to  give  up  their  country  and  this  also  took  place.  The  giving  up 
of  their  country  served  as  the  offering  which  the  Pelasgians  had  to 
bring  in  order  to  propitiate  the  anger  of  the  Athenians. 

In  Hist.  TX,  93-94  we  read  that  the  Apolloniats  had  a  flock  of 
sheep  which  were  sacred  to  the  sun.  The  noblest  citizens  were 
selected  to  guard  the  sheep  from  harm  during  the  night.  When  a 
certain  Evenius  was  chosen  to  keep  the  watch  he,  one  night,  fell 
asleep;  wolves  came  and  destroyed  sixty  of  the  sheep.  When  the 


54 


loss  was  discovered,  the  Apolloniats  brought  Eveniiis  to  trial  and 
condemned  him  to  lose  his  eyes.  After  he  was  blinded  the  sheep 
had  no  young  and  the  land  ceased  to  hear  its  accustomed  harvests. 
Forthwith  the  Apolloniats  consulted  the  oracles  at  Delphi  and 
Dodona.  The  answer  was  that  the  gods  themselves  had  sent  the 
wolves  and  that  they  would  continue  punishing  the  Apolloniats 
until  they  made  to  Evenius  whatever  atonement  he  asked — irplv  y 
StKas  Smctl  twj/  iiroirjaav  TavTa<i,  ras  av  avro?  eXrjraL  Kal  StKaLol.  EveniuS 
demanded  certain  productive  lands  and  a  well  furnished  home,  and 
these  were  bought  for  him.  This  story  points  out  again  the  ele¬ 
ments  of  expiation  and  propitiation;  both  were  effected  by  the 
offering  of  the  lands  and  the  home  to  Evenius. 

Euripides  (b.  480  B.  C.)  offers  two  very  expressive  examples. 
In  Medea  it  is  recorded  how  Jason  deserts  his  wife  Medea  and 
takes  to  himself  the  royal  daughter  of  Creon.  The  anger  of  Medea 
is  aroused  and  she  murders  her  two  sons.  She  is  likewise  the 
cause  of  the  deaths  of  Creon  and  his  daughter.  Jason  recalls  to 
Medea  her  own  sinful  life  and  she  becomes  conscious  of  her  guilt. 
In  reply  she  remarks :  I  will  institute  a  solemn  festival  and 
offering  to  make  atonement  for  this  impious  murder — crefiv^v  kopr^v 
Kal  rlXrj  Trpoa-dxf/opiev  .  .  .  dvrl  rovSe  ^vaae/3ov<s  cf>6vov  (1382-1383). 
The  desire  of  expiating  the  guilt  of  crime  is  clearly  seen  and  with 
it  also  there  goes  the  wish  to  become  reconciled;  the  festival  and 
offering  are  the  means  made  use  of  to  accomplish  the  desired  effect. 

In  the  play,  Iphigenia  in  Aulis,  the  substance  of  the  narrative 
is  the  following.  Agamemnon  had  pursued  a  hind  into  the  sacred 
precincts  of  Artemis  and  there  killed  it.  He  thereby  incurred  the 
anger  of  the  goddess  and  in  punishment  she  prevented  Aga¬ 
memnon’s  sailing  from  Aulis  to  Troy.  Eager  to  know  the  cause 
of  his  detention  at  Aulis  Agamemnon  seeks  the  advice  of  Calchas 
the  seer.  He  announces  that  Artemis  is  angry  and  will  not  grant 
favorable  winds  until  Agamemnon  sacrifices  his  daughter  Iphigenia 
to  Artemis  (’I^tyfiVetav  ea-Tretp^  eyw  ^ ApTepu^i  Ovcrai — 90-91).  Ho 
expression  of  humble  repentance,  no  pleading  on  Agamemnon’s 
part  was  capable  of  changing  the  decree  of  the  goddess.  Therefore 
in  order  to  expiate  his  guilt  and  to  procure  the  good  winds  from 
the  goddess  Agamemnon  decides  to  bring  his  daughter  as  an  ex¬ 
piatory  and  propitiatory  sacrifice.^^  Favored  with  good  winds  they 
then  set  sail.  It  is  easy  to  distinguish  the  presence  of  the  three 
elements  in  this  narrative. 

=“‘01  1570-1577. 


55 


II.  In  the  LXX  and  Jewish  Tradition 
1.  In  the  LXX 

It  is  possible  that  the  characteristic  developments  of  the  root  of 
iXdcrKeaOaL  in  profane  Greek  may  be  only  incidental.  But  it  is 
highly  probable  that  they  are  due  to  a  special  factor  manifesting 
its  influence  at  about  200  B.  C.  When  we  see  that  the  word 
IXao-TrjpLov^  which  practically  never  occurred  in  early  profane  litera¬ 
ture,  is  employed  in  another  world  of  thought  with  astonishing 
frequency,  the  problem  receives  added  interest.  From  the  stand¬ 
point  of  patristic  interpretation  we  are  forced  to  suppose  a  new- 
agency  which  was  powerful  enough  to  create  from  current  ideas  a 
new  terminology  in  later  hellenic  literature ;  and  at  patristic  times 
this  terminology  had  become  so  common  that  it  plainly  was  not 
a  problematical  or  hazy  notion  but  an  every-day  idea.  Conse¬ 
quently  in  the  present  question  patristic  literature  is  the  historia 
docens,  pointing  out  the  world  from  which  this  new  agency  exer¬ 
cised  its  influence.  By  the  constant  appeal  to  the  LXX  as  the 
source  for  the  term  tAao-r^/otor,  the  Fathers  clearly  show  that  the 
new  power  was  the  LXX.  Accordingly,  an  inquiry  into  its  use  and 
the  meaning  it  attaches  to  IXda-KecrOai  and  the  derivatives  is  of 
utmost  importance. 

a)  The  Verb 

Verbal  forms  of  (1$)  cXda-KeaOaL  occur  more  than  160  times  in  the 
LXX.  At  least  115  of  these  are  the  equivalent  of  more  than 

20  cases  have  no  Hebrew  equivalent,  while  in  the  remaining  cases 
(i^)  iXdaKeaOaL  is  the  equivalent  for  Hebrew  verbs  meaning  to  for¬ 
give,  pardon,  expiate,  conciliate,  cleanse,  free  from  sin,  appease. 
Let  us  examine  the  meaning  of  (el)tAao-Kecr^at — “103  to  find  out 

what  elements  are  included. 

Jacob,  conscious  of  having  wronged  his  brother,  is  in  mortal 
dread  of  meeting  Esau.  Therefore,  he  sends  his  servants  with 
gifts  in  advance,  saying:  I  will  appease  his  face — iiiXdo-ofjuat  t» 
Trpoo-wTToi/  avTov — r^0  n303^J^*  The  meaning  is  that  Jacob,  con¬ 
scious  of  his  guilt  of  wrong  doing,  hopes  by  gifts  to  expiate  this 
guilt,  to  propitiate  his  brother’s  anger,  and  to  become  reconciled 
to  him. 


Gen.  XXXII,  20. 


56 


After  the  golden  calf  episode  before  going  up  the  mountain  to 
God,  Moses  says  to  the  people :  I  shall  make  expiation — e|tAdcr<o/xat — • 
for  yonr  sins.^^*"  This  was  effected  either  by  the  inter¬ 
cession  of  Moses  (v.  31),  or  by  his  offer  to  die'  for  his  people  (v. 
32).  The  crime  of  idolatry  through  w^orship  of  the  golden  calf 
required  expiation;  a  wrathful  God  had  to  he  propitiated.  Moses 
accomplished  both  either  by  interceding  or  by  offering  to  die  for 
his  people. 

If  a  murder  had  been  committed  and  the  murderer  was  not  dis¬ 
covered  the  ancients  of  the  nearest  city  where  the  murdered  body 
was  found  killed  a  heifer  over  running  water  and  washed  their 
hands  over  it  to  protest  their  innocence.  In  prayer  they  be¬ 
sought  God  not  to  lay  this  murder  to  their  charge  and  to  that  of 
the  people,  and  ‘^Hhe  blood  (guilt)  shall  be  expiated  for  them — 
l^iXaaOr^aeraL  avrol^  to  aiixa — The  guilt  of  blood 

rested  upon  the  land  and  the  people.  The  prayer  of  the  ancients 
with  the  sacrifice  of  the  unblemished  heifer  tended  to  make  expia¬ 
tion  and  to  propitiate  God,  so  that  He  would  show  Himself  favor¬ 
able  to  the  people. 

When  the  Lord  appeared  to  Samuel  in  the  temple  He  spoke  of 
the  sins  of  Helfis  sons  and  told  ^Samuel  that  the  iniquity  of  Helhs 
house  shall  not  be  expiated — e^iXaaO^aeTaL — with  victims  nor 

offerings  for  ever.^®  Here  the  allusion  is  clear.  The  sins  of  Heli’s 
sons  brought  the  curse  of  God  upon  Heli  himself,  and  the  Lord 
did  not  accept  victims  or  offerings  in  expiation  for  these  sins, 
neither  was  the  Lord  propitiated,  for  Heli  and  his  sons  were  killed. 

David  consulted  the  Lord  concerning  the  cause  of  a  three  year 
famine  and  was  told  it  was  a  punishment  because  Saul  and  his 
bloody  house  had  slain  the  Gabaonites  to  whom  the  Israelites  had 
sworn  protection.  Calling  them  David  asks :  M^hat  shall  I  do  for 
you  and  wherewith  shall  I  make  expiation — e^iAdo-co/mt — ^00^.  that 

you  may  bless  the  inheritance  of  the  Lord.^®  The  Gabaonites  reply 
(v.  4)  that  it  is  not  a  question  of  silver  or  gold  between  them¬ 
selves  and  Saul,  but  that  they  desire  to  destroy  the  offspring  of 
the  man  who  crushed  and  oppressed  them  unjustly  (v.  5).  There¬ 
fore  they  ask  for  two  of  Saul’s  sons  and  five  of  his  grandsons  that 
they  may  crucify  them  to  the  Lord  in  Gabaa  of  Saul  (v.  6) .  Their 

=*^1  Kgs.  Ill,  14. 

H  Kgs.  XXI,  3. 


=^'>Ex.  XXXII,  30. 
28  Deut.  XXI,  8. 


57 


request  is  granted,  the  seven  are  crucified  and  the  Gabaonites  are 
satisfied.  The  injury  done  them  by  Saul  is  expiated  by  the  death 
of  his  offspring.  God  also  is  placated,  for  He  showed  mercy  again 
to  the  land  after  these  things  (v.  14).  The  guilt  of  the  blood  shed 
by  Saul  rests  upon  his  family,  and  its  penal  consequences  affect 
the  entire  nation.  Therefore,  the  mercy  of  God  is  not  shown  to 
the  land  until  the  guilt  of  these  murders  is  removed. 

A  number  of  other  references  indicate  the  same  twofold  meaning 
although  the  element  of  propitiation  stands  in  the  foreground. 
Thus  we  read  that  the  Lord  is  merciful  and  He  will  be  propi¬ 
tious — IXdaerai — *103  to  sinners.^^  Again,  deliver  us,  0  Lord,  on 

account  of  Thy  name  and  be  propitious — IXdaOrjTL — 103.^^ 

In  Leviticus  and  Numbers  forms  of  l^LkdaKeaOaL  occur  more 
than  60  times  in  connection  with  the  sacrifices  and  offerings  pre¬ 
scribed  by  the  law.  Strikingly  frequent  is  its  occurrence  in  the 
ceremonies  laid  down  for  the  ritual  observance  of  the  day  of  Atone¬ 
ment  (Lev.  XVI ).  In  the  majority  of  these  cases  the  verb  is 
followed  by  nepl  (expiate  and  propitiate  for  some  one),  and  usually 
the  priests,  Levites  or  High  Priest  perform  these  rites  by  means  of 
sacrifices. 

While  the  examples  from  the  LXX  stress  the  element  of  expia¬ 
tion  in  the  meaning  of  (i^) lAda-KecrOai  and  its  cognates,  the  element 
of  propitiation  is  certainly  included.  In  profane  Greek  the  idea 
of  propitiation  appears  to  be  more  conspicuous;  yet  the  idea  of 
expiation  is  also  essentially  contained  in  (e^)tAaoiK€<7^at.  As  S.  E. 
Driver  says,  “^^the  difference  marks  a  distinction  between  the 
heathen  and  the  Biblical  points  of  view;  though  the  idea  of  pro¬ 
pitiating  God  may  be  involved  in  the  phrases  used  in  the  OT, 
it  is  much  less  prominent  than  in  heathen  writers  In  reference 
to  the  LXX  meaning  of  (e^)tAdCTK6o-0a6— 303,  he  says:  The  expia¬ 
tory  rite  has,  no  doubt,  as  its  ultimate  object  the  restoration  of 
God’s  favour,  and  the  worshipper’s  forgiveness  ”,  and  hence 
“  though  the  idea  of  propitiation  is,  no  doubt,  involved  in  hipper, 
it  must  not  be  unduly  pressed;  and  the  idea  most  distinctly 
conveyed  by  the  word  was  probably  that  of  ^expiation’”.  The 
same  writer  states  in  the  beginning  of  his  article  that  kipper 


“  Ps.  LXXVH,  38.  Ps.  LXXVIH,  9. 

3^>Cf.  IV,  20,  2(),  31,  35;  V,  6,  10,  13,  16,  18,  26;  XIV,  18,  10,  20,  20,  31. 
»^  Cf.  VlII,  12,  19,  21;  XV,  25,  28;  XVI,  46,  47;  XXVIll,  22,  30. 
“ERE,  V,  658,  art.  Expiation  and  Atonement  (Hebrew). 

“Op  cit.,  653. 


58 


is  the  Heb.  word  corresponding  to  both  ‘^make  expiation^  and 
^  make  atonement  ^  The  phraseology  of  J.  Orr  is  similar. 
Speaking  of  (ei) iXda-KeaOaL — “ipp  in  the  LXX,  he  ’wrrites:  Both 

ideas  seem  to  be  implied  here ;  the  offence  is  cancelled  or  annulled, 
.  .  .  and  God  is  rendered  propitious.  .  .  .  The  means  by  which 
this  was  effected  under  the  Law  was  ordinarily  sacrifice 

b)  The  Adjective 

The  only  adjectival  use  of  the  term  is  found  in  Ex.  xxv,  17, 
where  the  words  ^Hhou  shalt  make  a  np0p  of  pure  gold^^  are 

rendered  by  the  LXX  Trot^crets  IXacr^pLOV  lir'ideixa  -)(pv(tIov  KaOapov^^. 
Concerning  this  example  Deissmann^®  correctly  remarks  that  the 
LXX  ^^haben  den  Begriff  kapporeth  ganz  richtig  verstanden  und 
zwar  auch  als  Breviloquenz  namely,  ftir  kapporeth  setzen  sie 
IXaaT^piov  iTTiOepxi,  weil  es  sich  um  eine  Platte  handelte,  die  irgend- 
wie  als  Deckel  der  Bundeslade  diente’k  The  adjective  lXa<jT^piov 
indicates  that  this  Platte  had  something  to  do  with  expiation 
and  propitiation.  The  reason  is  clarified  by  the  consideration  of 
the  substantive. 

c)  The  Substantive 

In  contrast  to  profane  Greek  literature  the  LXX  writers  use  the 
substantive  frequently,  no  less  than  27  times.  Of  this  number  21 
are  renderings  for  5  for  n“liJ7  ;  and  in  Amos  ix,  1 

its  use  is  evidently  the  result  of  a  mistaken  reading  of  DpDp  for 

nnDp- 

In  the  21  cases  the  term  is  employed  to  designate  the  special 
locality  above  the  ark  where  God  manifested  His  presence  to  the 
Israelites,  and  where,  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  sacrificial  blood, 
expiation  was  made  for  the  sins  of  the  Israelites,  and  God  declared 
Himself  placated.  That  the  IXaar^piov  had  a  particular  purpose 

765,  art.  Propitiation. 

*»Op.  cit.,  207. 

®®They  occur  in  Ex.  XXV,  18,  19,  20  (twice),  21,  22;  Ex.  XXXI,  7; 
Ex.  XXXV,  12;  Ex.  XXXVII,  6,  7,  8,  9  (twice)  ;  Lev.  XVI,  2  (twice), 
13,  14  (twice),  15  (twice)  ;  Num.  VII,  89.  In  Ex.  XXVI,  34  the  LXX 
read  tw  KaraTrerdaixaTi  for  717.^3  due,  as  Deissmann  (Op.  cit.,  207)  says, 
to  a  faulty  reading  of  for  PlEi. 

*«Ez.  XLIII,  14  (3  times),  17,  20. 


59 


and  was  not  intended  merely  to  close  the  ark,  is  implied  by  the 
fact  that  it  was  made  of  solid  gold  while  the  ark  itself  was  only 
of  wood  overlaid  with  gold.  Deissmann  holds  that  in  the  LXX  it 
means  ^^ein  (Versohnendes  oder)  Siihnendes^  (Yersohnnngs-  oder) 
Siihnungsgegenstand  oder  -mitteYk^^  Thus  Deissimann,  while  ad¬ 
mitting  the  presence  of  either,  would  fain  eliminate  the  propitia¬ 
tory  element.  But  our  position  is  that  both  are  essentially  and 
necessarily  always  involved.  Xor  is  it  probable,  as  Deissmann 
argues,  that  iXaur^piov  merely  signifies  a  means  or  circumstance  of 
expiation  and  propitiation,  because  both  profane  as  well  as  biblical 
Greek  examples  have  made  it  clear  that  ordinarily  the  means  by 
which  these  acts  are  effected  is  sacrifice.  The  correct  meaning  of 
the  word  is  suggested  by  the  Holy  of  Holies  being  called  the  house 
of  expiation  and  propitiation.  In  I  Par.  xxviii,  11  the  LXX  does 
not  use  lXa<TT7jpLov,  but  explains  n^OZ)  by  tov  olkov  tov  e^iXaapiov— 

n*105n  and  in  V.  20  it  is  again  styled  rov  oIkov  tov  IXacrpov 

The  question  arises  whether  this  is  only  accidental  or  whether  it 
reveals  a  right  understanding  of  n'HDS  by  the  LXX  ?  By  defining 

the  Holy  of  Holies  as  the  house  of  expiation  and  propitiation  the 
LXX  writers  undoubtedly  wished  to  show  the  all-importance  of  the 
0.  T.  IXaxTT^pLov  and  also  to  offer  a  clue  to  its  correct  interpre¬ 
tation.  If  n“l03  is  the  house  of  expiation  and  propitiation,  then 

lXa<TT^pLov  designates  the  particular  place  within  the  Holy  of  Holies 
where  these  acts  were  performed.  It  is  likewise  to  be  observed 
that  e^iXaapio^  and  IXaapA^  are  employed  indiscriminately  in  the 
above  quoted  example.  The  LXX  employs  the  substantive 
(c^)tAao-jLio?  more  than  25  times  and  in  all  cases  it  implies  both 
elements.  Special  attention  may  be  called  to  Lev.  xxiii,  27-28 
where  the  Atonement  day  is  twice  designated  as  ■^p.epa  e^iXaapov — 
DV.  The  Vulgate  uses  two  distinct  expressions.  The 

first  in  v.  27  is  rendered  ''dies  expiationum”  while  in  v.  28  the 
Vulgate  reads  "dies  propitiationis Evidently  the  Vulgate 
finds  both  ideas  expressed  in  iitXaapo?. 

What  now  must  be  the  conclusion?  Does  {ei)LXdaKe(xOai  mean 
to  expiate  or  to  propitiate,  or  to  expiate  and  to  propitiate?  The 
conclusion  must  be  that  both  elements  are  fundamentally  and  sub¬ 
stantially  always  included;  if  sin  was  removed  then  God  was  again 

^  Op.  cit.,  208. 

“  Vigouroux,  La  Sainte  Bible,  1,  597. 


60 


rendered  favorable  and  propitious  to  tbe  Israelites.  The  act  of 
expiation  is  followed  by  propitiation.  Modern  authors,  to  a  cer¬ 
tain  extent,  recognize  the  double  element,  and  the  following  quo¬ 
tation  will  be  in  place.  After  examining  the  verb  "'i0p  and  its 

derivatives  in  the  LXX,  S.  K.  Driver  concludes :  What,  lastly, 
it  may  be  asked,  is  the  most  prominent  idea  expressed  by  hipper? 
The  ideas  of  expiation,  purification  from  sin,  propitiation,  and 
^  at-one-ment  or  reconciliation,  are  intimately  connected ;  one  and 
the  same  rite  effects  them  all;  and  all,  if  not  included  in,  are  at 
least  immediately  suggested  by,  kipper  ’b  We  maintain  that  these 
ideas  are  not  merely  suggested,  but  are  essentially  and  necessarily 
included.  Deissmann  is  therefore  wrong  wTen  he  insists  that  the 
context  must  decide  whether  the  meaning  be  expiation  or  propitia¬ 
tion.  Eegarding  IXacrT^piov  we  conclude  that  the  word  originated 
in  the  LXX,  and  that  it  contains  the  notions  of  a)  expiation  and 
b)  propitiation',  these  are  accomplished  c)  hy  the  sacrificial  Mood 
being  sprinkled  d)  on  a  holy  and  special  place  e)  where  God  was 
present.  The  IXaury^piov  was  not  the  means  whereby  expiation  and 
propitiation  were  effected,  but  the  place  where  these  acts  were 
performed  through  the  sprinkling  of  the  sacrificial  blood.  The 
means  of  expiation  and  propitiation  is  expressed  by  (e^)tAao-jao?. 
The  0.  T.  IXacTTTjpLov  in  itself  did  not  expiate  and  propitiate,  neither 
did  the  sacrificial  blood  in  itself  bring  about  these  effects ;  but  they 
resulted  only  then  when  the  blood  was  sprinkled  on  the  IXao-Tpptov : — 
the  local  connection  between  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  and  the 
iXaarrjpLov  was  necessary.  This  local  notion,  however,  lies  not  in 
the  blood  but  in  IXaargpiov.  In  the  LXX,  then,  we  have  the  agency 
that  was  operating  between  early  profane  Greek  literature  and  the 
idiomatic  phraseology  of  the  Fathers.  How  influential  this  agency 
was  becomes  evident  from  a  study  of  the  word  in  Jewish  tradition. 

2.  In  Jewish  Tradition 

The  Talmud  and  Jewish  Atonement  day  customs  offer  inter¬ 
esting  and  important  testimony  in  proving  the  traditional  double 
element  in  ‘IDD  and  its  derivatives. 

a)  The  Talmud 

Sins  of  man  against  God  the  day  of  Atonement  expiates  — 

ERE,  V,  658,  art.  Expiation  and  Atonement  (Hebrew). 

**  All  Talmudic  references  are  taken  from  Lazarus  Goldschmidt,  Der 
Babylonische  Talmud,  VIII  volumes. 


61 


“ICDO  □'’“I'lDDH  but  the  sins  of  man  against  his  fellow  man 

it  does  not  expiate — until  they  become  reconciled.^®  In 
the  same  tract  we  read  that  death  and  the  day  of  Atonement  make 
expiation — The  rabbis  also  ordered  the  Jew  to  pray 
before  entering  a  bath  house,  lest  destruction  and  sin  overtake  him. 
If  he  should  unfortunately  happen  to  sin  then  he  must  pray  that 
his  death  be  an  expiation — rTlDD  for  all  his  sins.^® 

When  the  son  of  R.  Simeon  ben  Shetah  was  falsely  accused  and 
condemned  to  death,  he  said :  If  I  am  guilty  may  my  death  not 
be  an  expiation — for  all  my  sins;  but  if  I  am  innocent 
may  my  death  serve  as  expiation — Mention  is  also  made 
of  one  rabbi  who  would  offer  himself  as  an  expiation — n"lDD  for 
R.  Hija  and  his  sons.®®  Such  examples  show  that  the  rabbis  con¬ 
sidered  death  as  an  expiation  for  sin  and  as  a  means  of  effecting 
propitiation.  This  is  shown  more  distinctly  in  the  following  ex¬ 
ample.  According  to  Num.  xxv,  25-28  if  one  was  guilty  of  man¬ 
slaughter  and  had  fled  to  a  city  of  refuge,  he  had  to  dwell  there 
until  the  death  of  the  High  Priest.  Thereafter  he  was  again  free 
to  return  to  his  own  country.  The  rabbis  proposed  the  question 
whether  the  slayer  made  expiation— for  his  crime  by 
being  exiled.  They  answered  in  the  negative  and  held  that  the 
slayer  obtained  expiation — only  through  the  death  of  the 
High  Priest.®^  His  death  must  be  considered  as  a  sin-offering  by 
which  the  sins  of  his  people  are  not  only  expiated  but  God  is  also 
propitiated  and  reconciliation  is  effected. 

This  brief  study  shows  that  in  the  Talmud  stress  is  laid  upon 
the  point  of  expiation  whereas  the  element  of  propitiation  hardly 
finds  express  mention.  But  the  latter  idea  is  necessarily  implied 
for,  by  desiring  to  expiate  their  sins,  the  Jews  sought  also  to  pro¬ 
pitiate  God  and  become  reconciled  to  Him;  otherwise  their  act  of 
expiation  would  have  been  meaningless.  Such  is  also  the  view  of 
G.  F.  Moore  ®^  on  the  meaning  of  in  the  Talmud :  The 

verb  kipper  and  its  derivatives  are  used,  precisely  as  in  the  OT, 
in  the  sense  ^  to  make  propitiation,  expiation,  procure  remission  ’  ’k 

b)  Atonement  Hay  Customs  of  the  Middle  Ages 
No  less  illuminating  are  the  customs  of  the  Jews  in  the  middle 


Joma  85**. 

«  Ibid. 

Joma  86^. 

^  Berakh.  60®. 


Sanh.,  44'’. 

"'’Sukkah,  20h 
“Makkoth,  IP. 

EBi,  IV,  4226,  art.  Sacrifice. 


62 


ages.  Weigand  says  of  the  word  happores  that  it  is  Jiidische 
Aussprache  des  rahbinisch-hehr.  kapporeth  f.  ^  Versdhnung,  Siihn- 
opf  er  ^  He  then  states  that  on  the  Atonement  day  the  J ews 

sought  to  place  their  sins  upon  a  non- Jew,  saying  to  him:  ‘^‘^Sei 
du  meine  kapporeth !  which  means,  mein  Suhnopfer,  was  dann 
den  Sinn  hatte:  Stirh  du  fiir  mich  zur  Versbhnung  mit  Gott^k 
In  preparation  for  the  day  of  Atonement,  as  Sanders  relates, 
the  Jews  were  wont  to  purchase  a  rooster  als  eine  ^  Kaporoh  ’ 
(gleichsam  ein  Suhnopfer )^k  He  adds  that  they  would  swing  the 
fowl  over  their  head  three  times  with  the  wish  that  the  punish¬ 
ments  due  them  for  their  sins  be  transferred  to  it.  Then  the 
rooster  was  killed.  K.  Kohler  also  speaks  of  this  custom  and 
adds  that,  while  swinging  the  cock  around  the  head,  the  Jew  re¬ 
peated  three  times  in  Hebrew  the  following :  This  be  my  sub¬ 
stitute,  my  vicarious  offering,  my  atonement.  This  cock  (or  hen) 
shall  meet  death,  but  I  shall  find  a  long  and  pleasant  life  of 
peace !  ’k  The  fowl,  Kohler  remarks  elsewhere,®®  was  to  be 
killed  in  place  of  the  Jew  or  Jewess  who  might  be  guilty  of  death 
by  his  or  her  sin  ^k  This  custom,  he  adds,  shows  a  deep-rooted 
desire  for  some  form  of  atoning  sacrifice  ^k  These  practices  are 
also  mentioned  by  Eisenmenger  who  writes  that  during  the  act 
of  swinging  the  fowl,  besides  the  other  formula,  the  Jew  recites 
w.  13,  17,  20  and  21  of  Ps.  cvii  and  23  and  24  of  Job  xxxiii. 
He  informs  us  also  that  if  a  Jew  was  too  poor  to  purchase  a  cock, 
he  went  out  early  in  the  morning  and,  giving  three  or  four  pence 
to  the  first  Christian  he  met,  he  asked  him  to  be  his  capporo,  which 
means :  “  Ich  soil  sterben  und  habe  gesiindigt,  fahre  vor  (fiir) 
mich  in  die  Holle,  vor  (fiir)  Yergebung  meiner  Siinden  und  sterbe 
vor  (fiir)  mich^k®^  Again,  it  is  customary  with  the  Jews  on  the 
Atonement  day,  according  to  the  same  author,  when  meeting  a 
Christian  “  das  Wort  Cappara  oder  Capporo,  welches  eine 

Versiihnung  heisset  .  .  .  gegen  denselben  ausstossen  ’^,®®  wishing 

”  Deutsches  Worterbuch,  I,  987. 

M  Worterbuch  d.  deut.  Sprache,  I,  866. 

VII,  435,  art.  Kapparah.  Cf.  Bernstein,  Jiid.  Sprichworter,  31. 
He  explains  as  “  Kapuru,  kapurojss,  ‘  Siihne  ’.  Hahn  oder  Henne, 

welche  am  Vorabend  des  Versohnungstages,  nach  altem  Branch,  als  sym- 
bolisches  Suhnopfer  dargebracht  werden.  Dieser  Akt  heisst:  kapurojss 
schlugen 

II,  282,  art.  Atonement. 

^  Entdecktes  Judenthum,  II,  149-150. 

Op.  cit.,  I,  628. 


63 


thereby  to  have  the  Christian  bear  their  sins  and  become  expiation 
for  the  Jew.  There  is  yet  another  practice  mentioned  by  M. 
Caster.®®  He  learned  from  the  Samaritans  that,  whenever  they 
kill  an  animal  or  a  fowl  during  the  ten  penitential  days  (from  Hew 
Year  to  the  day  of  Atonement),  they,  in  addition  to  the  usual 
blessing,  repeat  the  three  following  words: 

^  to  atone,  and  to  atone,  he  shall  atone  ^  These  are  evidently 
taken  he  adds,  as  sin-offerings  preparatory  to  the  Day  of 
Atonement 

In  these  customs  and  traditions  the  double  notion  in  'IBD  has 

found  its  way  through  all  centuries  up  to  the  present  time.  And 
it  is  not  correct  to  state,  as  Deissmann  does,  in  reference  to  these 
customs,  dass  ihm  (i.  e.  kapporeth)  der  Begriff  Siihnung  ge- 
blieben  ist  As  stated  before,  the  idea  of  expiation  appears, 
indeed,  to  predominate;  but  the  other  idea  of  propitiation  is  never 
excluded,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  always  presupposed.  Therefore 
sin,  God,  and  men  are  the  objects  of  “10p  and  the  derivatives. 

We  add  two  striking  corollaries.  The  ancient  Babylonian  and 
the  Arabic  rituals  of  expiation  offer  close  parallels  to  'IBD  in  the 

O.T. 

Corollary  1.  According  to  Zimmern  the  Babylonian  technical 
term  for  expiate  is  “kuppuru  (Inf.  Piel,  mit  dem  entsprechenden 
Substantiv  takpirtu)  d.  i.  abwischen  This  terminus  technicus, 
he  declares,  is  identical  “^^mit  hebr.  “103,  der  technischen  Bezeich- 

nung  fiir  suhnen  ^  in  der  Priestersprache,  fiir  das  es  auch  die  im 
Hebraischen  selbst  wohl  nicht  mehr  durchgeflihlte  Grundbedeutung 
^ abwischen^  sichert’h  He  adds  that  the  expiatory  act  is  per¬ 
formed  for  persons  as  well  as  places  and  things.  In  this  ritual 
the  idea  of  expiation  is  not  the  only  one  contained;  the  hope  of 
placating  the  gods  and  of  becoming  reconciled  is  the  inseparable 
companion  of  expiation. 

Corollary  2.  Of  interest  also  is  Lagarde’s  suggestive  study  of 
the  Arabic  parallel,  which  dates  from  the  time  of  the  Koran. 
Lagarde  shows  ‘^dass  dem  hebraischen  n“i0D  ein  arabisches  als 

technischer  Ausdruck  der  Rechtskunde  alltagliches  kaffarat  formell 


‘“’ERE,  XI,  28,  art.  Sacrifice. 

'"Op.  cit.,  206. 

601-602.  Cf.  also  Langdon,  ExpT  (1911),  324  and  ERE,  V, 
640,  art.  Expiation  and  Atonement  (Babylonian). 


64 


haarscharf  entspricht  He  explains  what  the  legal  kaftarat  of 
the  Arabs  is,  and  a  few  examples  will  suffice.  “  Wer  ein  nadr 
Gellibde  oder  ein  Versprechen  ahsichtlich  unerfiillt  gelassen  hat, 
miisz  eine  kalfarat  [=n"10D]  erlegen ’k  The  kaffarat  is  likewise 

incumbent  upon  him  der  seine  Gattin  heschimpft,  der  unabsicht- 
lich  einen  Menschen  .  .  .  getotet  (oder  etwa  dnrch  seine  Hach- 
lassigkeit)  den  Tod  eines  Menschen  veranlaszt,  der  nicht  regel- 
recht  gefastet,  der  im  Eamadan  gar  nicht  gefastet  hat’k  The 
legal  expiation  for  such  offences  was  effected  either  by  the  setting 
free  of  a  slave,  by  fasting,  or  by  alms  giving  to  the  needy.®^  Even 
to  the  present  time,  as  we  learn  from  E.  W.  Lane,®^“  this  practice 
is  in  vogue  at  Mohammedan  burials  in  Egypt.  Thus  at  the  funeral 
of  a  person  of  rank  or  wealth,  three  skins  of  water  and  as  many 
camel  loads  of  bread  are  brought  to  the  place  of  burial  and  are 
distributed  to  the  poor  who  flock  thither  in  great  numbers. 
^^This  custome,^^  according  to  Lane  whom  Lagarde  quotes,  is 
called  el-kaff  arah  ^  (or  the  expiation);  being  supposed  to  expi¬ 
ate  some  of  the  minor  sins  (termed  gagair)  of  the  deceased,  but 
not  great  sins  (kebair)  Lagarde^s  conclusion  is  as  follows: 

Ich  komme  allerdings  infolge  meiner  Anschauungen  immer 
wieder  zu  dem  Schlusse,  dass  ri“;!05  Pentateuche  die  Gesetzes- 

lade  bedeute,  sofern  an  sie  die  Yersohnung  gekniipft  war  ’k^'^ 
From  the  examples  it  can  be  seen  that  there  is  always  an  offence 
or  sin  committed,  and  expiation  demanded.  This  act  of  expiating 
includes  also  the  desire  of  placating  and  becoming  reconciled. 
Hence  Deissmann^s  statement  that  kapporeth  bedeutet  wie 
kaffarat  Suhnung”  must  be  corrected  to  include  the  idea  of  pro¬ 
pitiation,  since  with  the  desire  of  expiation  goes  the  wish  to 
propitiate  and  become  reconciled.  The  one  necessarily  presupposes 
the  other. 

The  examples  of  IXdcrKeaOaL — ^0p  in  Jewish  literature  and  in 

'he  parallels  of  the  Arabic  and  Babylonian  rituals  of  purgation 
plainly  show  the  presence  of  the  essential  elements  of  expiation 
and  propitiation.  But  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  while  these  two 

®^Uebersicht  iiber  die  Bildiing  der  N'omina,  237.  We  transliterate  the 
Arabic  words.  Cf.  Margolioiith,  ERE,  V,  664,  art.  Expiation  and  Atone¬ 
ment  (Muslim). 

“  Op.  cit.,  233. 

Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Modern  Egyptians,  II,  268. 

Op.  cit.,  236.  “  Op.  cit.,  203. 

Op.  cit.,  237. 


65 


fundamental  ideas  remain,  the  notion  of  locality  in  Ikaar^pLov  — 
n‘^05  has  disappeared  in  later  Jewish  tradition.  The  reason  for 

this  disappearance  is  obvious.  After  the  destruction  of  the  temple 
the  Jews  had  no  place  par  excellence  for  carrying  out  these  acts; 
hence,  in  Jewish  tradition,  IXacrrypLov — gradually  lost  its 

element  of  locality.  At  the  time  of  the  LXX,  however,  the  factor 
of  locality  w^as  considered  so  important,  that  it  caused  the  LXX 
writers  to  coin  the  special  word  IXaar^pLov  which  w^as  unknown  to 
the  Greek  world  before  this  time.  Certainly,  profane  Greek  litera¬ 
ture  had  the  elements  of  expiation  and  propitiation  in  IXdaKeaSaL, 
but  it  lacked  the  substantive  Ikaar^piov  with  its  designation  of 
locality.  On  the  other  hand,  patristic  writers  retain  the  elements 
of  expiation  and  propitiation  in  IkdaKea-Oai,  they  know  of  and  use 
the  substantive  IXoatt^plov,  and  they  clearly  show  that  the  birth¬ 
place  of  this  substantive  was  the  LXX. 

The  question  now  arises:  which  factor  or  v-hich  development 
caused  the  transfer  of  the  LXX  word  IXoxtttjplov  with  its  notion  of 
locality  into  the  Greek  world  at  large?  The  answer  is  Philo,  or 
better,  that  movement  of  thought  which  is  represented  most  dis¬ 
tinctly  by  Philo,  namely,  Jewish-Hellenic  speculation. 

III.  In  Philo 

Between  the  profane  and  biblical  Greek  world  of  thought  stands 
Philo  (25  B.  C.),  well  acquainted  with  both.  He  forms,  as  it  were, 
the  bridge  upon  which  the  two  worlds  meet  and  become,  to  a  cer¬ 
tain  extent,  amalgamated.  What  we  have  observed,  therefore,  in 
profane  Greek  and  the  LXX  concerning  the  double  notion  applies 
also  to  the  meaning  of  IXdaKeo-OLa  as  used  by  Philo.  In  SP.  Legum 
Allegoriarum  III,  he  speaks  of  the  Atonement  day  which  expiates 
for  the  souls  of  us  who  have  done  evil — KaKwv  rgidiv  ra? 
IXadKerai  because,  when  we  afflict  and  deprive  ourselves  of  what 
pleases  us,  then  God  becomes  propitious — tAew  tov  0€oi/ 
in  De  Abrahamo  we  hear  of  propitiating  with  fear  the  royal  and 
despotic  power  so  as  to  ward  off  chastisement — rw  rrjv  r/ye/xo- 

VLKTjv  Kol  SeaTTOTLKrjv  IXacTKOjJLevov  i^ovalav  Again,  ill  Pe  MonCLTchicL 
II:  “God  is  propitiated  by  men  and  in  turn  He  offers  and  grants 
favors  to  men  —  dvOpMTroL  plv  tAdo-KwvTe?  ©edr,  ©ed<?  de  rd?  yd/atras 

>  A  '  >  '  '  ~  fiO 

avup(D7roL<s  .  .  .  optyrj  Km  • 

Opera,  I,  121. 


Opera,  II,  20. 


Opera,  II,  230. 


66 


Philo  occupies  a  prominent  place  in  the  IXacrr^pLov  problem.  He 
uses  the  word  several  times  and,  what  is  of  specific  import,  he 
leaves  no  doubt  that  the  0.  T.  is  the  source  for  this  use.  In  Be 
Vita  Mos.  7/7/®  he  states  that  the  ark  within  the  Holy  of  Holies 
had  a  covering  and  this  covering  was  like  to  that  which  is  called 
in  the  Bible  IXadTr^piov — ^  Ki/3iOT6<;  ..,•>)?  eTrt^e/xa,  waavel  Trw/xa,  to 

Xeyopcevov  ev  tepats  jSl/SXoi^  IXaaTrjpiov.  This  tXaarrjpLov,  he  continues, 
physically  ((/)oo-iKWTepoi/)  typified  the  merciful  power  of  God — Trj<i 
iXeio  rov  ©eof  iSwdpeojs,  and  morally  {rjOiKMrepov)  the  will  to  put 
aside  vain  and  haughty  opinions;  further  on  in  the  same  work  we 
find  again,  rd  Se  eTrlOepua  to  TTponayopevopievov  iXacrTrjpiov.  Mention 
may  be  made  here  of  the  indirect  allusion  to  a  locality  where  cer¬ 
tain  means  obtained  the  mercy  of  God  and  w^here  moral  influence 
was  exerted.  In  Philo^s  mind  the  LXX  IXadrr^pLov  was  an  al¬ 
together  peculiar  designation.  In  Be  Projugis  19,'^'^  we  read  that 
the  covering  of  the  ark  which  Moses  calls  IXadTgpiov — to  iTtlOepua  rijs 
Kt^corov,  KaXel  3’  avrov  IXodrypLov — represents  the  merciful  power  of 
God  The  cherubim  are  the  images  of  the  creative  and  kingly 
power,  while  the  Divine  Word  which  is  above  these  and  which 
does  not  come  into  any  visible  appearance,  in  as  much  as  it  is  not 
like  to  any  of  the  things  that  come  under  the  external  senses,  is 
itself  an  image  of  God  Proof  for  this  he  finds  in  Ex.  xxv,  22 
that  God  would  speak  to  Moses  from  over  the  propitiatory.  Here 
also  we  can  see  that  Philo  considered  IXaa-rypLov  as  a  special  desig¬ 
nation  for  the  place  where  the  Divine  Word  manifested  itself.  In 
Quis  Rerum  Biv.  HaeresP  Philo  quotes  Ex.  xxv^  22  for  evidence 
that  as  God  spoke  to  Moses  from  the  propitiatory  in  the  midst  of 
the  two  cherubim,  so  does  He  also  stand  above  His  creative  and 
chastening  power.  Be  Cherubim.,  5/^  Kal  yap  dvTt7rpoo-<o7ra  <^acriv  elvat, 
vcvovra  7rpo?  to  IXaxTTrjpiov  eTepot?,  is  a  dear  allusion  to  Ex.  XXV,  20 
where  we  read  that  the  cherubim  stand  face  to  face  inclining 
toward  the  IXadrrjpLov.  The  word  therefore  expresses  the  locality 
where  the  presence  of  God  was  made  known.  Just  as  God  spoke 
to  Moses  from  over  the  propitiatory,  so  God  stands  between  His 
powers,  that  of  creating  and  governing,  and  by  these  powers  His 
existence  and  presence  are  made  manifest  to  the  world.  Sum¬ 
marizing  we  say  that,  according  to  Philo,  the  0.  T.  IXao-Trjpiov  was 
the  place  par  excellence  where  God  manifested  His  presence  and 
His  expiating  and  propitiating  power.  With  certainty  it  may  be 

Opera,  II,  149-150.  Opera,  I,  496. 

Opera,  I,  561.  Opera,  I,  143. 


67 


stated  that  the  notions  of  expiation  and  propitiation  in  the  word 
iXao-T^pLov  were  crystallized  for  the  hellenic  world  by  Jewish  influ¬ 
ence.  The  substantive  Ikaar^piov  may  be  considered  as  a  kind  of 
syncretism  which  took  place  by  Jewish-hellenic  philosophical  specu¬ 
lation.  Any  doubt  concerning  the  correctness  of  this  view  will 
disappear  when  we  study  the  fuller  development  of  the  word  in 
the  hellenic  world  under  the  influence  of  the  LXX. 

IV.  In  Post-LXX  Times 

We  have  already  given  due  credit  to  Deissmann  for  throwing 
new  light  on  the  iXaa-rrjpLov  problem.  He  has  called  attention  to 
new  applications  of  the  term  and  it  is  necessary  to  study  the  mate¬ 
rial  he  presents  in  order  to  see  whether  or  not  his  conclusions  can 
stand  in  the  light  of  the  present  investigation.  After  examining 
all  the  applications  of  the  term  known  to  him,  Deissmann  ex¬ 
presses  the  result  in  the  following  words :  An  alien  Stellen  be- 
deutet  IXaarrjpLov  Versohnungs-  oder  Siihnungsgegenstand,  noch 
allgemeiner  zutreffend  ein  Versohnendes  oder  Siihnendes’b  Die 
Specialbedeutung  oder  richtiger  die  Specialanwendung  des  Wortes 
ist  also  stets  eine  okkasionelle 

If  we  recall  a)  that  the  two  fundamental  notions  of  expiation 
and  propitiation  were  always  found  attached  to  the  root  of 
IXdaKea-Oaif  b)  that  Sacrifice  or  offering  appeared  as  a  constant  com¬ 
panion  idea  of  IXdo-KeaOm,  c)  that  so  far  the  substantive  had  an 
emphatic  local  signification,  then,  in  view  of  these  facts,  it  seems 
altogether  impossible  that  IXao-TrjpLov  should  not  have  a  fixed  mean¬ 
ing.  And  it  is  wholly  improbable  that  these  well-established 
notions  should  suddenly,  or  in  the  course  of  time,  have  given  way 
to  the  mood  and  fancy  of  circumstances  to  signify  sometimes  this 
and  sometimes  that.  Before  submitting  post-LXX  material  to  a 
detailed  examination  two  preliminary  observations  must  be  made. 

1.  The  meaning  of  words  ending  in  rrjpiov  (or  rrjp-  It  is 

of  no  small  importance  for  our  problem  that  words  ending  in  rrjpLov 
show  the  characteristic  tendency  to  denote  a  locality.  The  subjoined 
list  of  such  words  is  taken  from  the  lexicon  of  Lid  dell- Scott,’’'’" 
and  the  meaning  of  each  word  is  quoted  ad  verhum.  We  have 
arranged  the  list  into  three  groups :  the  first  containing  those 
words  whose  meaning  is  given  as  ^  place ',  the  second  containing 

Op.  eit.,  198.  ”  Greek-Englisli  Lexicon. 

Of.  Robertson,  Grammar  of  Grer^k  N.  T.,  154. 


68 


those  words  whose  meaning  unmistakably  points  to  ^  locality  and 
the  third  whose  meaning  is  given  as  ^  means  ^  instrument  etc. 

Exactly  48  words  ending  in  r^piov  are  mentioned  in  the  dic¬ 
tionary  with  the  express  signification  of  ^  a  place 

dytao-riyptov,  to,  a  holy  place^  sanctuary. 
ayvevT^pLov,  to,  a  place  of  purification. 
aywvixTT^pLov,  to,  a  place  of  assembly. 
aOpoLVTypLov,  TO,  a  muster-place. 
aKpoaTypiov,  to,  a  place  of  audience. 
aXeiTTTypLov,  to,  a  place  for  anointing. 
apaWyTypiov,  to,  a  place  of  contest. 

avoKapLTTTypLov,  TO,  a  place  to  walk  backwards  and  forwards  in. 
avoir awjTypiov,  to,  a  place  of  rest. 
aprjTrjpLov,  to,  a  place  for  prayer. 

^aiTTKTTypLov,  TO,  a  bathing-place. 

yvpivao-Trjpiov,  to,  the  public  place  where  athletic  exercises  were 
practised. 

SeiKTrjpLov,  TO,  a  place  for  shewing. 

epipmTypLov,  to,  a  place  to  live  in. 

evrj^yTypiov,  to,  a  place  of  amusement. 

epyacTTypiov,  to,  any  place  in  which  work  is  done. 

evvoTypLov,  to,  a  sleeping-place. 

yPyTypLov,  to,  a  place  where  young  people  meet. 

yXuKTTypLov,  TO,  a  place  for  sunning  oneself. 

OprjCTKevTypLov,  to,  a  place  of  worship. 
iiroiTypiov,  TO,  a  pressing-place. 

KaOapixTTypLov,  to,  a  place  for  purifying. 

KaTaa-KoirevTTjpLOv,  to,  a  look-Out  place. 

KXypoiTypLov,  TO,  at  Athens,  a  place  in  the  theatre,  where  the  magis¬ 
trates  and  dicasts  sat;  the  place  where  elections  by  lot  were 
held. 

Koip^yTypiov,  TO,  a  sleeping-room,  a  burial-place. 

KovKTTypiov,  TO,  a  place  covered  with  dust,  hence  a  rolling  place. 
KpviTTrjpLov,  TO,  a  lurklug-place  or  a  dungeon. 

Kpvo)T7)pLov,  TO,  B,  wmo-cooler,  a  cool  shady  place. 

XoyidTypLov,  TO,  the  place  at  Athens  w^here  the  XoyLo-Tal  met;  a 
place  for  philosophical  discussions. 
picXeTyTrjpLov,  to,  a  place  for  practice. 
jxKrOoiTrjpLov,  to,  a  hiring  place. 
oiKTjTrjpLov,  TO,  a  dwelllng-place. 

olwvLaTrjpLov,  to,  a  place  for  watching  the  flight  of  birds. 


69 


opyaoTTTjpLOV,  ro,  for  opyiadTr^piov  a  place  of  OrgieS. 
oppirjTTjptovy  TOf  a  starting  place. 

TraTrjT^pLov,  to,  a  place  where  grapes  are  trodden. 

Tro\epLrjTT]pLov,  to,  the  place  from  which  a  general  carries  on  his 
operations. 

TrpaT^piov,  TO,  a  place  for  selling. 

TTwXrjT^pLov,  TO,  a  place  where  wares  are  sold. 

(jrjpuavrrjpiov,  to,  a  place  for  coining  money. 

KjToXvcTT^pLov,  TO,  a  place  where  the  priests  attired  themselves  or 
the  statues  of  the  gods. 

crxoXadTTjpLov,  to,  a  place  for  passing  leisure  in. 

T€Xe<TTypLov,  TO,  Si  pluce  for  initiation. 
vTToSeKT^pLov,  TO,  Si  placo  of  rofugo  or  a  reservoir. 

VTToSvT^piOV,  TO,  V.  SUb  VTToSeKTypLOV. 

(f>povTL(TT^pLov,  TO,  Si  placo  for  moditation,  a  thinking-shop. 
Xp-qpxiTLaT^pLov,  TO,  a  place  for  transacting  business,  a  seat  of  judg¬ 
ment,  a  counting-house,  a  place  for  the  oracle. 
ijrvKTypLov,  TO,  a  wine-cooler,  a  cool  shady  place. 

The  second  group  comprises  87  words  whose  meaning  plainly 
refers  to  a  locality  or  place. 

aio-6r)T7]pLov,  to,  an  organ  of  sense. 
aKeaTvpiov,  to,  a  tailor’s  shop. 
aKovaTi]pLov,  to,  an  audience  chamber. 

aKpoiT^pLov,  TO,  any  topmost  or  prominent  part,  a  cape,  pro¬ 
montory. 

apivvTTjpLov,  TO,  a  defence,  bulwark. 

avayv(j)(TT^piov,  to,  a  lectern,  reading-desk. 

avoKXivT^pLov,  TO,  Si  recumbent  chair. 

aTToSvT^piov,  TO,  an  undressing  room. 

apLCTTrjT^pLov,  TO,  a  refectory. 

acTKrjT^pLov,  TO,  a  hermitage  or  monastery. 

avXrjT^pLov,  TO,  a  court-house. 

avXixjTTjpLov,  TO,  an  abode,  stall. 

a(f>€TypLov,  TO  (sc.  ttAoiW),  the  outlet  of  a  seaport. 

a<l)oS£VT^pLov,  TO,  a  privy,  a  close-stool. 

^axTavujT^pLov,  to,  the  c|uestion-chamber. 

PovXevT^ptov,  TO,  the  council-chamber,  senate-house. 
yeixTTrjpiov,  to,  a  cup  for  tasting  with. 

SeinvrjT^pLov,  to.  Si  dining-room. 


70 


SeKarevrypLov,  to,  the  tenths-officG;,  custom-house. 

SeapLOiT^pLov,  TO,  a  prison. 

SiaLTrjT^piov,  TO,  in  pi.  the  dwelling  rooms  of  a  house. 

^LKamT^piov,  TO,  a  house  of  correction. 

’hiKOATT^piov,  TO,  a  court  of  Justice. 

SiaMT^pLov,  TO,  the  temple  of  Zeu?  "^oiTT^p  on  the  Acropolis  at 
Athens. 

lKKXrj(Tia<jT7]piov,  TO,  the  hall  of  the  iKKXrjaia,  a  church. 
iK7rL€aT7]pLOV  (sc.  opyavov) ,  to,  a  press. 
eXaiaTi^pLov,  to,  an  olive-press. 

€VKTr]piov,  TO,  an  oratory. 

€v<joxr)TT]pLov,  TO,  a  banqueting-house. 
e\f/r]TT]pLov,  TO,  a  dish  or  pan  for  boiling. 

^r)Tr]T^pLOV,  TO,  =/3acravLaTijpLOV. 

'qOrjT^piov,  TO,  a  strainer,  colander,  esp.  a  wine-strainer. 
■^(TvxcKnnjpLov,  to,  the  retreat  of  an  -^avxpxjTr)^. 

6eo>prjTT]pLov,  TO,  a  seat  in  a  theatre. 

6vpLLaT7]pLov,  TO,  Si  vessel  for  burning  incense,  a  censer. 

OvonanTijpLov,  to,  an  altar. 

OvT^pLOV,  TO,  =  OvdiaCTT^pLOV. 

ISpwT^pLov,  TO,  Si  sweating-bath. 

KaduTT^pLOV,  TO,  Si  Seat. 

KaTaXvTijpLov,  TO,  an  inn,  lodging. 
kXlvtijplov,  to,  a  couch,  sofa. 

KoXaaT^pLov,  to,  a  house  of  correction. 

KOTvaviaT^pLov,  TO,  a  vessel  for  braying,  a  mortar. 

KoapirjTTjpiov,  TO,  a  dressing-room. 

KpacT^piov,  TO,  a  rack,  manger. 

KpaTTjpLov,  TO,  a  mixing  vessel,  esp.  a  large  bowl,  in  which  tlie 
wine  was  mixed  with  water. 

KpiT^piov,  TO,  Si  court  of  Judgment,  tribunal. 

KvjSevTyjpiov,  to,  a  gambling-house. 

K(ji)6o)VL<TTT]pLov,  TO,  Si  bauqueting  house. 
krpT^piov,  TO,  a  retreat  or  nest  of  robbers. 
kovT^piov,  TO,  a  washing  or  bathing-tub . 
piovaGT^piov,  TO,  a  solitary  dwelling,  a  monastery. 

TraihevT^pLOv,  to,  a  school. 

7r€LpaT7]pLov,  TO,  Si  pirate’s  nest. 

TreacrevTTjpiov,  to,  an  astronomical  table  of  the  Egyptians,  divided 
into  squares  like  a  draught-hoard. 


71 


TnedTTjpLov,  (sc.  opyavov) ,  to,  a  press. 

TTLCTT^pLov,  TO,  a  dimkiiig-troiigh  for  cattle. 

TrXaaT7]pLov,  to,  a  work-shop. 

TTOTT^pLov,  TO,  a  driiikiiig-cup,  wine-cup. 

TTOTicrTrjpLov,  TO,  a  drinking-trough  for  cattle. 

7rpo7roXepL7)T7]pLov,  TO,  a  bastion^  outwork. 

Trpocf)vXaKT^pLov,  to,  an  outpost,  guard. 

(TaKekiCTTy^pLov,  to,  a  strainer,  colander. 

<TK07revTypLov,  TO,  a  beacon-hill. 

(TO(f>L(TTi]pLov,  TO,  a  soplilst’s  school. 
orpePXijoTTjpLov,  to,  a  rack. 
a~vvaKT7]pLov,  TO,  an  assembly. 

a-(fxiyija(jTi^pLov,  to,  a  bowl  for  catching  the  blood  of  victims  in 
sacrifices. 

<T(f)aLpi(TT7]pLov,  TO,  a  ball-coui’t. 
aoiffipovujTT^pLov,  TO,  £L  house  of  correction. 

Ta^Xio-Typiov,  TO,  a  gaming-house. 

TapnevTypiov,  TO,  a  treasury,  a  magazine,  storehouse. 

Tpvyr]T^pLov,  TO,  a  wine-press. 

vytaaT^piov,  to,  a  hospital. 

vXLdTypLov,  TO,  a  filter,  strainer,  colander. 

VTTOKpaT^pLov,  TO,  tlie  stancl  of  a  npai  f}p. 

(fiOLTrjT^pLOV,  TO,  £L  School. 

cf>ovevT^pLov,  TO,  a  slaughter-house. 

(pvyaSevT^pLov,  to,  a  city  of  refuge. 

(f)vXaKTi]pLov,  TO,  a  guarded  post,  a  fort  or  castle. 
cf>v(TrjT7ipLov,  TO,  a  blow-liole,  Lat.  spiraculum. 

(fiVTcvT^pLov,  TO,  SL  nurscry  or  plantation. 

(f>o)TL(jTT]pLov,  TO,  a  baptistory. 

XaXKcvT^pLov,  TO,  a  smith’s  shop,  forge,  smithy. 

^prjCTT^pLov,  TO,  an  oracle,  i.  e.,  the  seat  of  an  oracle. 

XiovevT^piov,  TO,  a  smelting-furnace. 
ipvxpi^Typf'Ov,  TO,  a  cooler. 

Liddell-Scott  mention  71  words  ending  in  T^piov  that  express, 
either  means,  instrument  or  other  meanings. 

ayvKTT^pLov,  TO,  a  means  of  purifying. 

a-KvqTTjpiov  (sc.  <f>dppxiKov) ,  to,  a  drug  to  cause  abortion. 


72 


aXf^rjTvpiov,  (sc.  <f>dpiMLKov)  f  rd,  a  remedy,  medicine. 

dXKTrjpiov,  TO,  a  help,  antidote. 

dfxrjT^pLov,  TO,  a  sickle. 

dfjLTTVKTypLovy  TO,  Si  hoise’s  head  band. 

dva/SaTypLov  (sc.  Upov) ,  to,  a  sacrifice  for  a  fair  voyage. 

dvacnraoTT^pLov,  to,  a  machine  for  raising  a  portcullis. 

d7rocf>0eyKTT]pLoVf  to,  an  utterance. 

■yopiijxjDTypLov,  to,  a  way  of  bolting. 

SapxLo-Tppiov,  TO,  an  instrument  for  taming. 

^r]Xr]T7]piov  (sc.  (f)dppxiKov) ,  to,  poison. 

BuSaKT^piov,  TO,  a  proof. 

BoKLpja(TTT]pLov,  TO,  Si  tcst,  mcans  of  trial. 

BpaaTTjpiov,  TO,  activity,  energy. 
iyepT^piov,  to,  an  excitement. 

eXaT^pLov  (sc.  (pdppxiKov) ,  to,  an  Opening  medicine. 
ipi^aT^piov  (sc.  /xeAo?),  to,  the  air  to  which  the  soldiers  marched,  ' 
a  march. 

iicTacTTypiov,  TO,  a  test,  proof. 

eTTLpaT^pLov,  TO,  a  festival  to  celebrate  the  advent  of  a  god. 
emKpLTTjpiov,  TO,  determination. 

€vcf>pavT^piov,  TO,  a  means  of  cheering. 

^evKTTjpiov,  TO,  a  yoke. 

OeXKTTjpiov,  TO,  a  charm,  spell,  enchantment. 

OepLCTT^piov,  TO,  a  reaping-hook. 

OoLvarrjpLov,  to,  a  meal,  feast,  banquet. 
uaTrjpiov,  TO,  SL  mode  of  cure,  cure. 

KaOeTrjpLov  (sc.  (fyappuiKov) ,  to,  a  plug  of  lint,  pessary.  , 
KaXvTTT^piov,  TO,  Si  covering. 

KaTaTravdTrjpiov ,  to,  a  means  of  putting  to  rest. 

KavTijpiov,  TO,  Si  branding  iron. 

KevTTjTTjpiov,  TO,  Si  prickor,  awl. 

KLvrjT^ptov,  TO,  a  ladle. 

KXaBevTTjpiov,  TO,  a  pruning  knife. 

KXadT^pLov,  TO,  a  knife  for  dressing  vines. 

KXv(jT7)piov,  TO,  a  clyster-pipe,  syringe. 

KXoiaTTJpiOV,  TO,  a  clue. 

Kpepxio'TijpLov,  TO,  a  drop  in  a  necklace. 

KvrjT^pLov,  TO,  aiding  delivery. 

Xa^evT7]pLov,  TO,  a  stone-cutter’s  tool. 

XiKpLrjT^pLov,  TO,  a  winnowing-fan  or  shovel. 


73 


lMi\6aKTT]pLov,  TO,  aiiy  emolHeiit,  a  plaster,  poultice. 
fxvar^pLov,  to,  a  mystery  or  secret  doctrine. 
vLKrjT^pLov  (sc.  aOXov),  TO,  the  prize  of  victory. 

6wxt<TT7]pLov,  TO,  Si  nail-knifc  or  scissors. 
opKiapLOT^pLov,  TO,  an  oatli. 

6pvKT7]pLov,  TO,  a  pickaxc  or  any  sharp  iron  tool  for  digging. 
6<Tcf)pavTypiov  (sc.  (jiappuaKov) f  to,  strong  scent  used  to  revive  per¬ 
sons  fainting. 

TreSop-pavT^pcov,  to,  defilement. 

TreprjTypLov,  to,  a  borer. 

TrepLppavT^pLov,  to,  an  utensil  for  besprinkling. 

Traypaa-T^piov,  to.  Si  lid. 

pavTicTTrjpiov,  to,  an  instrument  for  sprinkling,  a  whisk. 

piTTiCrTT^pLOV,  TO,  Si  fan. 

poya-T^pLov,  TO,  a  strengthening  medicine. 

<ruiXL<TT^pLov,  TO,  Si  bridle-fiit,  which  is  apt  to  be  covered  with  foam. 
vKaXio-T^pLov,  TO,  an  instrument  for  stirring  or  hoeing,  a  hoe. 

OTKeTTTTJpLOV)  TO,  Si  prOOf. 

<TTr)OL(TT^pLov,  TO,  the  poitrel  of  a  war-horse. 

<TTp<3iTTjpLov,  TO,  a  rafter  laid  upon  the  bearing  beam. 
<Tcf)payL(TTT]pLov,  TO,  Si  seal,  stamp. 

(TxpxTT^ptov,  TO,  a  lancet. 
oxeT^piov,  TO,  a  check,  remedy. 

>TayLaT^pLov,  to,  a  ration. 

TeKpJqpiov,  TO,  a  sure  sign  or  token. 

TpLTTT^pLov,  TO,  a  rubbing  tool. 

<l>p€v<oTT]pLov,  TO,  Si  moans  of  instruction. 

XapaKT^pLov,  TO,  an  instrument  for  marking  or  graving. 
yapuTTTjpLov,  TO,  a  thank-offering. 

XpifTT^piov,  TO,  an  unguent,  a  bottle  of  ointments. 
if/aXT^pLovy  TO,  a  stringed  instrument. 

Other  substantives  denoting  locality,  not  found  in  Liddell-Scott, 
are  aTravTT^TTjpiov,  TO,  deversorium/®  a  resting  place,  SeapLevTi^piov,  t6,^^ 
a  prison,  KoXkvpLOTrjpLov,  t6,'^^  a  place  for  exchanging  money,  kvk- 
XevT^pLov,  To,’^^  a  circular  place,  airo/SaT^piov,  to',®®  a  landing  place. 
The  sum  total  is  211  substantives  ending  in  TTjptov;  of  these  140 

Moulton-Milligan,  Vocabulary  of  Greek  Test.,  I,  53. 

^^Op.  cit.,  II,  143.  ■'“Op.  cit.,  IV,  363. 

Op.  cit.,  IV,  353.  Jos.  Flavius,  Antiq.  I,  3,  5. 


74 


designate  a  locality.  This  demonstrates  that  it  is  characteristic 
for  words  ending  in  r^piov  to  signify  locality.  Of  course  the 
possibility  is  obvious  that  the  substantive  IXoxtttjplov  could  follow 
the  minority  where  the  local  notion  is  either  not  clear  or  not  at 
all  contained.  But  the  probability  exists  also  that  it  should  follow 
the  general  tendency  of  words  ending  in  r^piov. 

2.  TAcio-r^piov  and  the  LXX.  We  have  observed  that  lXa(TT7]piov 
does  not  occur  in  profane  Greek  before  the  time  of  the  LXX  and 
this  shows  that  the  word  must  be  a  product  of  the  LXX.  And  in 
the  LXX  it  signifies  locality  and  nothing  else.  Does  it  seem  pos¬ 
sible  that  this  word,  devoid  of  its  original  meaning  which  it  re¬ 
ceived  from  those  who  coined  it,  was  given  to  the  Greek  world  with 
a  different  meaning  ?  Indeed,  this  would  be  a  strange  phenomenon. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  entirely  within  the  line  of  a  natural 
development  if  the  term,  in  the  Greek  world,  retained  that  original 
meaning  given  it  by  its  makers;  and  this  the  more  so,  since  by 
this  development  it  would  follow  the  general  characteristic  of 
words  ending  in  r^ptov,  many  of  which  were  used  in  profane 
Greek  long  before  IXaudrypiov  arrived  there. 


A.  The  Former  Evidence  in  a  New  Light — Factors  Misunderstood 

We  noAv  proceed  to  the  examination  of  material  presented  by 
Deissmann.  Here  already  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  examples 
of  IXacTTrjpiov  in  post-LXX  literature  clearly  demonstrate  that  the 
local  notion  attached  to  the  word  by  the  LXX  remains  inseparably 
connected  with  it  throughout  its  further  history.  Therefore  we 
can  say:  Post  hoc,  ergo  propter  hoc.  Deissmann  offers  applica¬ 
tions  of  IXao-TTjpLov  in  reference  to 

1.  The  Ark  of  Xoe 

Symmachus,  in  his  translation  of  Gen.  vi^  15,  does  not  follow 
the  LXX  in  naming  the  ark  of  Noe  ki^ojtos,  but  twice  in  the  same 
verse  he  describes  the  ark  as  a  IXao-TrjpLov — ‘^‘^Bam  [the  ark]  .  .  . 
arcae ;  (to)  iXacrrrjpiov  .  .  .  (rov)  IXacrTrjpLov The  meaning  of 
IXadTTjpiov  stands  out  here  in  its  original  realistic  force.  The  ark  was 
not  a  votive  offering  nor  the  means  of  reconciliation,  but  naturally 


”  Field,  Origenis  Hexaplorum,  I.  23. 


75 


the  place  where  salvation  was  offered.  The  local  notion  is  the 
only  possible  one  to  be  attached  to  the  term.  Deissniann  cannot 
escape  the  forceful  expression  of  the  original  local  notion.  He 
calls  this  application  sehr  bedeutsam  and  assigns  as  reason, 
offenbar  deshalb,  weil  sie  der  Gnadenort  war :  wer  in  der  Arche 
sich  barg,  dem  war  Gott  gmadig  The  element  of  propitiation 
is  obvious.  But  what  about  the  other  element?  Is  the  idea  of 
expiation  also  connected  with  the  ark?  Certainly;  and  this  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  only  those  were  admitted  who  had 
pleased  God  by  their  faith.  The  latter,  in  contrast  to  the  un¬ 
faithful  who  perished  in  the  flood,  are  actually  to  be  considered 
as  being  cleansed  of  sin,  which  was  the  reason  why  they  found  ’ 
salvation  in  the  ark.  Such  firm  and  immovable  points  should  be 
a  warning  for  the  explanation  of  apparently  doubtful  examples. 
The  pretext,  that  a  word  in  different  contexts  should  denote  the 
most  heterogeneous  ideas,  is  an  act  of  despair,  and  is  opposed  to 
general  philological  experience. 

2.  The  Altar  Ledge  or  Brim 

No  less  important  is  the  application  of  the  term  by  the  LXX  to 
the  altar  ledge  or  brim  (Ez.  xliii,  14,  17,  20).  The  verses  read: 
“And  from  the  bottom  of  the  ground  to  the  lowest  brim  (IXaa- 
T7]pLov — n'^iyn)  two  cubits  and  the  breadth  of  one  cubit;  and  from 

the  lesser  brim  (IXao-TTjpLov — n"1iyn)  to  the  greater  brim  {IXaa- 

TijpLov — four  cubits,  and  the  breadth  of  one  cubit’’  (v.  14). 

“And  the  brim  (Ikaar^pLov — H'^iyn)  was  fourteen  cubits  long,  and 

fourteen  cubits  broad  in  the  four  corners  thereof”  (v.  17).  “And 
thou  shalt  take  of  his  blood,  and  shalt  put  it  upon  the  four  horns 
thereof,  and  upon  the  four  corners  of  the  brim  {IXaaT^pLov — H'llVn), 

and  upon  the  crown  round  about”  (v.  20).  This  most  realistic 
use  of  IXaa-T^pLov,  even  Deissmann  admits,  “  erklart  sich  aus  der 
sakralen  Bestimmung  der  Umfriedigung :  sie  soil  mit  dem  Blute 
des  Siindopfers  besprengt  werden  und  ist  deshalb  entweder  als 
eine  Gnadenstatte  oder  als  ein  Siihnort  aufgefasst  Had  he 
omitted  the  disjunctive  conjunctions  “  entweder-oder  ”  and  written 
“und”  instead,  he  would  have  given  the  term  its  exact  proper 
meaning  as  the  sacred  place  of  expiation  and  propitiation.  The 

Op.  cit.,  196. 

®®Op.  cit.,  196. 


76 


notion  of  locality  is  once  more  so  conspicnons  that  no  other  expla¬ 
nation  is  possible.  The  question  whether  the  expiatory  and  pro¬ 
pitiatory  elements  are  the  concomitant  ideas  should  not  be  raised 
again.  Here  also  the  combination  of  the  two  ideas  is  dictated  by 
the  context.  The  LXX  writers  selected  the  term  Lkaar^piov  because 
it  expressed  comprehensively  that  special  and  sacred  locality  around 
the  altar  where,  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering, 
expiation  was  made  and  propitiation  obtained.  Zahn,  after  re¬ 
ferring  to  the  0.  T.  iXacTTypLov  as  die  vornehmste  S telle  des  Tern- 
pels,  an  welche  am  Versohnungstag  der  Hohepriester  das  siihn- 
kraftige  Blut  der  Biindopfer  sprengte  continues,  in  reference  to 
the  Ezechiel  texts,  aus  gleichartigem  Grunde  wird  auch 

die  Einfriedigung  des  Brandopferaltars,  durch  IXaaT^pLov  wieder- 
gegetben 

An  example  from  Christian  liturgy  testifies  with  equal  clearness 
to  the  fundamental  local  idea  of  IXao-rrjpLov.  In  the  Typicum,  a 
liturgical  work  which  is  ascribed  to  St.  Sabas  (V  century),  we 
read,  in  chapter  I,  that  the  priest,. after  incensing  the  holy  table 
and  the  entire  altar,  passes  through  the  holy  door  and  incenses 
directly  before  the  IXao-r^ptxi-KaTevMTnov  rwv  IXaarrjpLoyv.  And  in  chap¬ 
ter  Y  the  rubrics  prescribe  that  the  priest  incense  the  holy  table 
and  also  the  entire  tAao-r^piov-ro  IXacrr^pLov  aTrav.^^  Deissmann 
frankly  states  that  the  word  here  describes  den  Altarraum,  den 
Chor  der  Kirche  Most  probably  these  applications  refer  to 
the  entire  sanctuary,  and  they  show  that  the  term  was  employed 
in  what  we  claim  to  be  its  natural  sense,  i.  e.,  locality.  It  is  self- 
evident  that  this  holy  place  could  be  designated  as  IXaarppLov,  be¬ 
cause  it  was  at  the  altar  of  the  sanctuary  that  the  iXoa-KeirOaL  took 
place  by  means  of  sacrifice. 

3.  The  Altar 

If  the  altar  ledge,  the  enclosure  of  the  altar,  and  the  sanctuary 
can  be  called  so,  then  it  need  not  surprise  us  to  find  the  altar  itself 
called  IXaar^piov.  In  the  lexicon  of  Hesychius  IXoa-r^pLov  is  de¬ 
fined  by  KaOdpcTLoVf  Ov<TL<i(TT7]pLov.  'Schleusner  quotes  the  above 
from  Hesychius,  and  from  the  lexicon  of  Cyrillus:  IXaarypLov 

®^0p.  cit.,  184. 

DuCange,  Gloss arium  Graecitatis,  I,  613. 

®®0p.  cit.,  196. 

Hesychii  Lexicon,  II,  41. 

Novus  Thesaurus,  III,  109. 


77 


OvCTUKTT^pLOV,  iv  0)  TTpOacfiepEL  ( f  Olte  TTpOacfiipeTaL  iGgGndlim.)  TTCpl 
a/xapTLMv  DGissmann  citGS  both  thGSG  instancGs  but  commGnts 
only  on  tho  first  to  tliG  cffoct  that  Hosy chins  must  have  had  a  spG- 
cial  application  in  mind  when  giving  6v<na<TT^pLov  as  explanation  of 
Ikaarypiov.  He  states  further  that  Hesychins  explains  the  word 
by  synonyms  because  das  Eeinigende  und  das  Siihnende  liegen 
nahe  zusammen^b  Certainly,  these  notions  are  inseparably  con¬ 
nected.  But  why  does  not  Deissmann  add  the  meaning  of  Ova-Laa- 
T^pLov  ?  If,  as  he  argues,  KaOdponov  means  that  which  purifies 
and  tkacTT^piov  “  that  which  expiates  then  OvcnanT^piov  must  mean 
that  which  is  sacrificed  But  this  meaning  it  cannot  have ;  foi\ 
everywhere  we  find  that  6v<Tba<TT^piov  designates  the  altar  of  sacri¬ 
fice,  or,  to  be  more  exact,  the  place  of  sacrifice.  Consequently  if 
lXa(jT7]pLov  is  explained  by  6v<na<TT^pLov  then  it  must  be  a  place  where 
expiation  and  propitiation  are  accomplished.  The  example  from 
Cyrillus  says  plainly  and  indisputably  what  we  have  tried  to  prove 
by  circumstantial  argumentation,  namely,  that  IXuar^piov  is  the 
altar,Hhe  place  of  expiation  and  propitiation,  upon  which  sacrifice 
for  sins  is  offered. 

4.  A  Church 

A  still  wider  application  is  given  by  John  Cameniata  (X  cent.), 
who,  in  describing  certain  magnificent  churches,  says  they  are 
wcTTrep  TLva  KOLva  7rpo<?  to  Oelov  tXaaTrjpui  Deissmann  WOuld 

render  this  passage  “wie  Versohnungsgeschenke,  die  der  Gottheit 
von  der  Gesamtheit  geweiht  sind”;  and  he  adds  that  such  an 
application  would  signify  “  ein  Weihgeschenk,  das  zur  Gnadig- 
stimmung  der  Gottheit  errichtet  ist’k  There  is  no  reason  why 
the  firmly-established  local  notion  should  have  suddenly  dis¬ 
appeared  from  lXa(TTypLov.  Deissmann’s  explanation  is  not  to  the 
point.  Every  church  may  be  a  “Weihgeschenk^^;  but  when  the 
term  IXacrr^piov  is  applied  to  a  particular  church,  then  the  “  Weih¬ 
geschenk  becomes  all  that  is  comprised  in  this  term,  i.  e.,  a  place 
where,  by  sacrifice,  expiation  and  propitiation  are  effected. 

Two  similar  examples  quoted  by  Deissmann  appear,  upon  close 
examination,  to  refer  not  to  the  church  but  to  the  sanctuary  proper. 
Theophanes  Continuatus  (X  cent.)  pens  a  description  of  a  beauti¬ 
ful  church  of  his  time.  He  is  at  great  pains  to  describe  minutely 
the  sanctuary  of  the  church  with  its  altars  and  holy  tables.  He 

Op.  cit.,  197. 

®®MPG,  109,  540;  De  Exoidio  Thessalonicae. 

Op.  cit.,  197.  lie  quotes  from  the  Corpus  Scriptorum  Byzantinorum. 


78 


then  tells  of  the  many  singers  who  took  part  in  the  processions 
held  therein  and  would  have  ns  know  that  such  ceremonies  were 
not  nnnsnal  in  a  IXacrrrjpLov  of  this  kind — rw  tolovtm  IXacrrrjpiM.^'^ 
Again,  he  relates  the  generosity  of  Constantine  toward  the  church. 
^^Who  can  enumerate  the  beautiful  carpets  and  vestments  which 
Constantine  gave  et?  to  ^oivoy  IXacrrypLov  ?  He  adds  that  these 
same  carpets  still  covered  the  floor  of  the  Holy  of  Holies  (the 
sanctuary)  at  his  time.®^  In  these  quotations  IXacrT^piov  clearly 
refers  to  the  sanctuary  of  the  church.  But,  he  this  as  it  may,  the 

fundamental  local  notion  of  the  term  is  obvious. 

« 

5.  A  Monastery 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that,  while  the  application  of  IXacr- 
rrjpLov  widens,  it  never  loses  its  local  notion.  Menander  (X  cent.) 
curiously  enough  calls  a  monastery  a  IXaa-TTjpLov.  Speaking  about 

Tov  pLovaaTT^piov  OLKOV  Tov  Aeyo/xevov  '^e/Savov  he  relates  how  the 
Persians,  after  breaking  their  truce  made  with  the  Eomans,  cap¬ 
tured  this  section  of  the  country  and,  coming  into  possession  of 
the  monastery  Sehanon,  they  fortified  it  with  strong  walls — relxei 
T€  KaTr)(Tcl)aXL(TpLevo)v  TO  iXaarrjpiov.^^  Such  an  application,  Heissmann 
holds,  can  he  explained  in  two  ways :  Das  Kloster  ist  entweder  .  .  . 
als  gnadigstimmendes  Weihgeschenk  an  Gott  aufgefasst,  oder  .  .  . 
als  der  Gnadenort,  wo  der  Mensch  die  Siihnung  seiner  Siinden 
findet  His  flrst  hypothesis  is  improbable  for,  as  we  have 
observed,  Weihgeschenk^^  does  not  express  the  literal  meaning  of 
iXacTTTjpLov.  A  monastery  may  he  a  votive  offering  according  to  the 
will  and  wish  of  the  builder  or  donor,  hut  when  designated  as  a 
iXadrrjpiov  it  can  only  he  a  place  where  expiation  and  propitiation 
are  performed.  Hence,  Deissmann^s  second  hypothesis  is  more 
near  the  truth,  since  monasteries  are  places  where  expiation  for 
sins  is  made  and  the  grace  of  God  obtained;  and  places  where  the 
monks  by  their  prayers  and  works  of  mortification  make  expiation 
for  the  sins  of  the  world  and  propitiate  an  offended  God. 

In  the  opinion  of  Deissmann,  Joseph  Genesius  (X  cent.)  also 
applies  the  term  to  a  monastery.  But  we  learn  from  Theophanes 
Continuatus  that  the  application  is  rather  to  the  sanctuary  of  a 

MPG,  109,  341,  Basilius  Macedo,  83. 

MPG,  109,  469,  Constantinus  Porphyrogenitus,  28. 

MPG,  113,  857,  De  Legationibus  Romanorum. 

Op.  cit.,  197. 

“MPG,  109,  220. 


79 


church.  Joseph  relates  that  Bar  das  (regent  in  place  of  his  brother 
Michael  III)  set  out  on  an  expedition.  He  had  forebodings  of 
his  approaching  death  and  went  to  a  nearby  place  called  Hodegus, 
apparently  to  pray.  While  Bardas  was  standing  at  the  entrance 
of  the  iXaarijpLov — to?  8e  7cape<Tri}Kei  roi?  rov  IXxKTTrjpiov  'irpoOvpoi^,  his 
mantle  was  suddenly  torn  from  his  shoulders.  He  at  once  saw  in 
this  another  omen  of  doom  and  prayed  to  the  Mother  of  God  for 
deliverance  from  the  evils  impending  Deissmann  understands 
this  passage  to  refer  to  a  monastery;  but  Theophanes,  who  relates 
the  same  expedition,  says  Bardas  went  to  the  church  of  the 
Mother  of  God  which  is  called  Hodegus — tt/oo?  rov  t?)?  .  .  .  Ocotokov 
vaov,  o?  ovTo>  Sr;  ‘OSr;yoi  KarovopLa^erm  The  context  in  the  former 
passage  also  points  to  this.  Therefore  the  term  is  here  again 
employed  to  designate  the  special  holy  place  within  the  church, 
i.  e.,  the  sanctuary,  the  Holy  of  Holies  of  the  H.  T.  That  Joseph 
Genesius  most  probably  meant  this,  and  not  a  monastery,  is  inti¬ 
mated  by  a  similar  narrative  which  Deissmann  overlooks.  In  the 
same  work,^®  we  hear  that  the  death  of  Leo  V,  the  Armenian,  was 
determined  upon  by  his  enemies.  Disguised  as  priests,  they  hid  in 
the  church  and  lay  in  wait  for  Leo.  At  the  beginning  of  the  hymn 
of  matins  Leo,  as  was  his  custom,  entered  the  church.  His  enemies, 
by  mistake,  attacked  one  of  the  priests,  thus  giving  the  alarm  to 
Leo  who  entered  the  iXoarr^piov — ovkovv  6  ^dao-iAev?  uaya  Tw  iXoAJTrjptip. 
His  assassins  followed  and  there  killed  him.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  Joseph  here  applies  the  term  to  the  sanctuary;  and 
there  is  not  the  least  reason  to  read  anything  else  into  the  former 
passage. 

6.  Statues  and  Monuments 

The  use  of  the  term  IXaa-rijpLov  in  inscriptions  on  statues  and 
monuments  constitutes  the  only  real  difficulty  in  the  problem’s 
history,  because  such  applications  can  be  explained  in  more  than 
one  way.  But,  in  view  of  the  constant  retention  of  the  local 
meaning  which  all  previous  examples  demanded,  we  may  rightly 
expect  that  the  use  of  the  word  in  inscriptions  on  statues  and 
monuments  also  demands  for  these  applications  the  established, 
traditional,  and  historic  sense.  We  have  no  right  to  presuppose  a 
sudden  break  in  the  accepted  meaning  of  the  term. 

On  a  statue  or  on  the  base  of  a  statue  of  the  imperial  period 

»'MPG,  109,  1124,  Regum  Lib.  IV. 

®^MPG,  109,  1020,  Regiim  Lib.  I. 


80 


the  following  inscription  is  found:  ^^The  people  of  Cos,  for  the 
welfare  of  the  Emperor  Caesar  Augustus,  the  son  of  god,  OeoU 

IXacrrypLov — 6  8a/>to5  virep  ra?  A.VTOKpdropo'?,  Kattrapo?  Oeov  vlov,  '^e/SacTTOv 
crcoTrjpta^  OeoU  IXaxTTrjpiov  Another  imperial  inscription,  occur¬ 
ring  upon  the  fragment  of  a  pillar,  reads  thus :  The  people  of 
Hales,  to  the  August  and  Warlike  Zeus,  under  the  presidency  of 
Gains  Horbanus,  son  of  Moschion,  friend  of  Caesar,  IXaxTT^piov — 
[6  Sdpio<s  6  ^AXevTLOiv  .  .  .  ^€]/?aor[T]w  All  !S[r]/3aTtw  IXacrr^piov, 
Sapjapx€vvTO<s  Tatov  ^lop^avov  Moo^ta)i/o[?  AoKatVapo? A  third 
application  is  found  in  Dio  Chrysostom  (II  cent.  A.  D.)  :  The 
Achains  shall  set  up  a  most  beautiful  and  large  votive  offering  to 
Athene,  and  upon  it  shall  inscribe:  IXaar^pLov  ^Axatol  rfi  TXtdSt — 

KaraXe'ixjjeiv  yap  avrov^  dvdOrjjJui  KaXXtiTTov  Kal  pLeyivTOV  ’ AOiqva  Kal 
hnypaxpeiv  •  IXa/Try^piov  ^ Amatol  rfj  ’lAtdSt 

After  quoting  these  examples  Deissmann  remarks :  In  alien 
diesen  Fallen  ist  IXoa-r^pLov  der  technische  Ausdruck  fiir  ein  die 
Gottheit  gnadig  stimmendes  Weihgeschenk;  man  konnte  iiber- 
setzen  Besanftigungsgeschenk,  Versohnungsgeschenk  Deiss- 

manWs  meaning  appears  to  be  entirely  too  general  and  Weih¬ 
geschenk  is  hardly  correct.  Elsewhere  after  quoting  these 
examples,  Deissmann  remarks  that,  early  in  the  imperial  period, 
it  was  a  not  uncommon  custom  to  dedicate  propitiatory  gifts  to 
the  Gods,  which  were  called  lAao-ri/pta  Furthermore,  he  says,  it 
is  very  probable  that  St.  Paul  knew  the  word  in  this  sense,  for 
if  he  had  not  already  become  familiar  with  it  by  living  in  Cilicia, 
he  had  certainly  read  it  here  and  there  in  his  wanderings  through 
the  empire,  when  he  stood  before  the  monuments  of  paganism  and 
pensively  contemplated  what  the  piety  of  a  dying  civilisation  had 
to  offer  to  its  known  or  unknown  Gods^k  Similarly,  the  Chris¬ 
tians  in  Pome  would  know  what  a  IXacrTypiov  was  in  their  time  ’k 
We  readily  agree  that  St.  Paul  and  the  Koman  Christians  could 
have  had  a  knowledge,  and  probably  did,  of  such  inscriptions. 
But  what  meaning  would  the  term  IXaa-r^pLov  convey  to  them? 
Deissmann  has  no  proof  that  it  designated  a  propitiatory  gift. 
It  is  true,  if  we  totally  ignore  the  history  of  the  term,  then  the 
monument  could  be  called  a  Weihgeschenk  ”,  erected  for  the 

®  Paton-Hicks,  Inscriptions  of  Cos,  No.  81,  126. 

Paton-Hicks,  Op.  cit..  No.  347,  225-226. 

Oratio  XI,  Edition  of  Reiske,  355. 

=^Op.  cit.,  195. 

131-132. 


81 


welfare  of  the  emperor  because  of  past  favors  shown  the  people. 
Again,  if  we  abstract  from  the  historical  development  of  the  term, 
the  monument  could,  per  se,  be  styled  Yersohnungsgeschenk 
because  the  people  hoped  by  its  erection  to  procure  the  present  or 
future  favors  of  the  emperor.  But,  if  considered  in  the  light  of 
the  term’s  history,  the  situation  is  entirely  different.  That  the 
substantive  should  now  have  abandoned  its  historical  basic  notion 
and  taken  on  a  new  meaning  must  be  proved.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  have  shown  that  the  fundamental  and  historical  meaning  of 
iXa/TT^pLov  is  that  of  locality  and,  what  is  of  the  greatest  importance, 
its  frequent  application  in  the  0.  T.  with  this  essential  local  idea,  , 
was  very  well  known  to  St.  Paul  and  could  also  have  been  known 
to  his  readers.  Both  would  naturally  have  understood  the  word 
in  that  sense  familiar  to  them  and  this  must  have  been  the  original 
meaning  given  to  the  term  by  those  who  coined  it,  the  LXX  writers. 

Our  argument  receives  additional  convincing  evidence  by  the  fact 
that  history  also  records  the  erection  of  statues  to  gods  as  distinct 
symbols  of  expiation.  In  the  Description  of  Greece,  ii,  xx,  1, 
Pausanias  (180  A.  D.)  mentions  the  erection  of  a  statue  to  a  god 
as  a  symbol  of  expiation  for  an  offence  of  blood-shedding.  The 
statue  is  described  as  one  of  white  marble,  representing  Zeus 
Meilichius  in  a  sitting  posture  (ayaXfid  eo-rt  KaOrjfxevov  Ai6<;  MeiXixtov, 
XlOov  XevKov).  Upon  investigation,  Pausanias  relates,  he  discovered 
that  the  statue  was  erected  for  the  following  reason.  The  Lacedae¬ 
monians  and  the  Argives  were  constantly  at  war  with  one  another ; 
the  trouble  being  caused  by  the  Lacedaemonians,  who  were  always 
attempting  to  annex  a  piece  of  Argive  territory.  Determined  to 
defend  themselves  and  their  country,  the  Argives  selected  a  thousand 
picked  men  and  placed  them  under  the  command  of  Bryas.  His 
behaviour  toward  the  people  was  offensive,  and  on  one  occasion  he 
seized  a  maiden  who  was  being  taken  to  the  bridegroom  and  raped 
her.  That  night  when  Bryas  was  asleep  the  girl  put  out  his  eyes 
and  then  fled  to  the  people  who  shielded  her.  The  Thousand 
demanded  that  the  maiden  be  delivered  to  them  for  punishment; 
when  the  people  refused  both  sides  took  up  arms.  In  the  civil 
war  that  followed  the  citizens  defeated  the  picked  soldiers  and  in 
their  anger  left  none  of  the  soldiers  alive.  Later  on,  Pausanias 
concludes,  the  people,  among  other  things,  brought  purifying  sacri¬ 
fices  for  the  guilt  of  kindred  blood  and  erected  a  state  to  Zeus 
Meilichius  —  varepov  Se  dXXa  re  eir^ydyovro  KaOdpava  ws  ctti  alpxiTt 
€p,(f)vXLM  Kal  dyaXpja  dveO'qKav  MeiXLxtov  Ato?.  There  can  be  no  doubt 


6 


82 


that  this  statue,  erected  by  the  Argives  after  the  blood-shed,  should 
serve  as  a  distinct  expiation  for  that  sin;  KaOapcna  expresses  this 
very  clearly.  It  is  a  natural  sequence  that  the  statue  was  erected 
also  with  the  intention  of  propitiating  the  possible  anger  of  the 
god.  Hence  we  see  that  a  statue  was  erected,  where,  by  the  means 
of  sacrifices,  the  people  hoped  to  expiate  their  sin  and  to  regain  the 
good  will  of  the  god.  This  historical  fact  proves  that  statues  were 
set  up  by  the  people  for  the  purpose  of  manifesting  their  desire  to 
make  expiation  for  some  offence  and  thus  to  propitiate  the  god’s 
anger  by  the  means  of  sacrifices.  How,  therefore,  when  we  find 
statues  or  monuments,  erected  to  the  gods  or  to  emperors,  who  at 
that  time  were  revered  as  gods,  and  inscribed  with  the  additional 
and  specific  term  IXoar^piov,  the  conclusion  must  be  that  this  was 
done  with  the  intention  of  designating  these  particular  statues  as 
places  of  expiation  and  propitiation— be  it  that  the  sacrifices  were 
offered  at  the  very  place  where  the  statue  was  erected,  or  that  this 
statue  is  a  symbol  of  the  real  place  of  sacrifice.  In  the  example 
from  Dio  Chrysostom  it  is  plainly  seen  that,  first  of  all,  an  avdOr]p,a 
is  to  be  erected.  Then  this  votive  offering  is  to  receive  the  further 
inscription  of  IXaaT^piov.  This  shows  that  Weihgeschenk  ”  or 
propitiatory  gift  ”  is  not  the  correct  meaning. 

Another  example,  which  presents,  perhaps,  even  clearer  evidence 
than  the  inscriptions,  is  offered  by  Josephus  (b.  37  A.  D.).  He 
relates  that  Herod  sought  treasures  in  the  tomb  of  David  and 
Solomon.  Two  of  his  soldiers  entered  the  tomb  and  advanced  as 
far  as  the  place  where  their  bodies  were  buried.  Suddenly  a  flame 
burst  forth  from  the  tomb  upon  the  guards  and  they  fled.  Then 
Herod  “because  of  fear  built  a  IXaxTT^piov,  a  monument  of  white 
stone  at  the  entrance  to  the  sepulchre,  and  that  at  a  great  expense — 
7repLcf)o^o<;  S’  avro?  /fat  rov  Seovs  IXcwTyjpLOv  pivrjpba  X€VKrj<;  Trirpa^  lin 

TM  aropLLM  KarecTKevdcraro  TroXvreXe^  rfj  Sairdvrj  Deissmanil 

takes  IXacrr^piov  to  mean  “  Beschwichtigungsmittel  seiner  Angst  ” 
or  “  Siihnemittel  f fir  seinen  ihm  Angst  einflossenden  Frevel  ” ;  and 
adds,  one  may  surmise  that  Herod’s  monument  served  “  als  Weih- 
geschenk  an  Gott  ...”  A  monument  in  itself  might  be  called  a 
“  Weihgeschenk  ” ;  but  when  the  monument  is  erected  to  make 
atonement  for  a  crime,  as  in  the  present  case,  and  when  it  is 
further  called  IXaar^piov,  then  the  meaning  “  Weihgeschenk  ”  is 
altogether  out  of  place.  Besides,  the  history  of  the  word  shows  that 


^«^Antiq.  XVI,  7,  1. 


Op.  cit.,  196. 


83 


lXaxTTT]pLov  has  never  denoted  a  simple  votive  offering.  Neither  can 
the  term  be  rendered  ^ means  of  expiation’,  since  for  this  ex¬ 
pression  only  one  word  was  available,  i.  e.,  tAao-jad?.  But  this  monu¬ 
ment  must  indicate  the  place  where  Herod  sought  to  expiate  his 
guilt  of  attempted  robbery  and  to  propitiate  the  anger  of  God. 
Moreover,  if  Josephus,  the  Jew,  employs  the  word  IXaxrr^pLov,  we 
must  suppose  that  it  retains  the  sense  given  it  by  its  originators, 
the  LXX  writers,  with  which  meaning  Josephus  was  very  familiar. 

Having  examined  the  material  offered  by  Deissmann,  it  can 
readily  be  seen  why  our  exegesis  leads  to  quite  opposite  conclusions. 
He  overlooks  the  basic  notion  entirely  and  reads  into  all  these 
passages  Versohnungs-  oder  Biihnungsgegenstand,  noch  allge- 
meiner  zutreffend  ein  Versohnendes  oder  Siihnendes  Nor  can 
we  for  one  moment  admit  his  assertion  that  the  selection  of  either 
^^Versohnendes”  or  “Suhnendes”  “hat  iiberall  der  Zusammen- 
hang  zu  entscheiden  The  context  is  not  the  deciding  factor 

in  determining  which  element  is  to  be  chosen,  because  the  context 
is  not  always  clear.  Both  the  usage  of  profane  Greek  and  our  LXX 
study  go  Jo  show  that  both  elements  are  fundamentally  contained 
in  the  root-verb  and  what  is  true  of  the  root  cannot  be  lost  on  its 
way  to  the  various  derivatives.  Any  departure  from  this  accepted 
sense  must  be  proved  on  better  evidence  than  that  furnished  by 
Deissmann.  It  was  disastrous  for  his  results  that  he  neglected 
the  historical  development  of  the  complicated  idea  of  the  term 
and  overlooked  the  fundamental  notion  of  locality  furnished  by 
the  LXX. 

B.  New  Corroborative  Evidence 

We  now  present  some  fresh  material,  all  of  it  plainly  indicating 
that  the  word  must  express  a  local  notion.  We  have  discovered 
applications  of  the  term  IXaxjTTjpLov  in  reference  to 

1.  The  Blessed  Virgin 

The  author  of  the  Sermo  de  Simeone  et  Anna,  which  has  been 
erroneously  ascribed  to  Methodius,^®®  describes  Mary  as  to  lAoa- 
TTjpLov  from  which  God  in  human  form  became  known  to  men — to 
iXaarrjpLOV  ov  ®eo«j  eyvoicrOr)  avOpMTroL<;  av0po)7ropAp(j)<i}<;N^  Such  an 
identification  of  Mary  with  the  0.  T.  propitiatory  is  indeed*  excep- 

cit.,  198. 

Bardenlievvcr,  Patrology,  178. 

'°'MPG,  18,  372. 


84 


tional  and  extraordinary.  The  association  of  ideas,  however,  is 
quite  natural.  Just  as  God’s  presence  was  disclosed  to  the  Israelites 
from  over  the  propitiatory  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  so  now,  through 
Mary,  God  becomes  manifest  to  all  the  world.  Mary  it  is  who 
bears  Christ,  God’s  sacrifice  for  our  sins,  and  therefore  she  may  he 
styled  TO  IXodT^piov,  where  God  manifests  Himself  to  the  world  and 
vouchsafes  universal  expiation  and  propitiation. 

In  the  oration.  In  Dormitionem  S.  Mariae,  III,  Andkew  of  Crete 
thus  addresses  Mary :  Hitherto  while  living  upon  earth  you 

could  be  claimed  as  part  of  the  earth;  but  now,  that  you  have 
been  taken  from  all  that  is  human,  the  entire  world  embraces  thee 
as  a  common  IXaar^pLOv — 6  avpara^  Tre/ateyet  ere  ko(t/i,o?  kolvov  lXa<T- 
T^/otov”.^°®  Our  explanation  of  the  preceding  passage  also  applies 
here.  Mary  is  not  a  votive  offering  nor  a  propitiatory  gift.  It  is 
evident  that  only  the  local  notion  of  IXoar^piov  can  be  the  founda¬ 
tion  for  Andrew’s  speculation.  Mary’s  womb  is  the  place  where 
God  manifested  Himself  to  the  world  for  salvation. 

The  same  arguments  hold  good  for  the  applications  of  the  term 
by  Germ  ANUS.  In  homily  I,  In  Praesentationem  SS.  Deiparae,  he 
calls  Mary  the  new  IXaxTpqpiov  which  is  most  God-like,  not  made  by 
hand  and  gifted  with  cleansing  power  —  IXaxTTiqpLov  Kmvov  re  Kal 
OeoeiSeaTaTov  KadapriKov  re  Kal  ayeiporcvKTOv  ypT^/wirtcrao'a.^®^  In  the 

homily.  In  Annuntiationem  88.  Deiparae,  Germanus  composes  a 
dialogue  between  Mary  and  the  angel  Gabriel.  The  angel  says  to 
her :  You  shall  become  the  common  IXoarr^piov  of  all  Christians — 

ypto’Tiavwi/  airavToiv  yevqcrrj  kolvov  IXoarypiov  ” ;  and  later  Gabriel  again 
addresses  Mary  as  the  iXoa-Ti^pLov  of  the  entire  world — tov  Koapov 
TravTo?  IXaa-TppLov.^^^  These  quotations  clearly  indicate  also  an  in¬ 
tended  contrast  between  the  0.  T.  type  and  its  H.  T.  antitype  as 
applied  to  Mary.  Attention  is  called  to  the  use  of  the  future 
(yevTjar))  which  shows  that  Mary  was  not  a  IXoarypiov  from  all 
times,  but  was  to  become  such  only  after  she  became  the  Mother 
of  Christ. 

2.  The  Altar 

To  the  examples  of  Deissmann,  where  IXauar^pLov  is  defined  by 
the  synonym  OvavaoT^piov,  can  be  added  several  more  direct  testi¬ 
monies.  Already  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  when  explaining  Amos 

^“8MPG,  97,  1100. 

98,  293. 

110  mPG,  98,  329.  See  also  308  where  Germanus  calls  Mary  TrayKoafiiov 

VKaarripLov. 


85 


IX-  1,  writes  that  the  Lord  instructed  the  prophet  to  strike  the 
iXaxxT^pLOv — vrXrj^aL  to  IXaxTTypiov,  thus  Calling  IXacrr^piov  an  altar — Lva 
UTTT],  TO  OvavacjTripiov.  This  testimony  receives  additional  impor¬ 
tance  when  Theodore  expresses  in  clear  terms  his  reasons  for  the 
use  of  -the  word;  for,  he  adds,  ^^the  altar  is  a  IXoar^ptov  because 
upon  it  sacrifices  are  offered  as  mjeans  of  expiation  and  propitia¬ 
tion  —  IXoATTTjpLov  yap  avTO  KaXel  <0?  im  tAcwr/xot?  t(ov  Ovo'lwv  Trpocra- 
We  must  be  grateful  to  Theodore  for  such  an  express 
definition  of  the  disputed  word.  This  alone  provides  certain  evi¬ 
dence  for  the  correct  solution  of  our  problem. 

'Cyril  of  Alexandria,  commenting  on  Amos  ix,  1,  changes  the 
LXX  reading  ^Vara^ov  to  tAaorT^ptov”  into  strike  upon  the  altar — 
Trara^ov  im  to  OvavaaT^pLov  Which  permits  the  reasonable  de¬ 
duction  that  Cyril  considered  6v<rbaaT^pLov  as  sjoionym  of  IXaxTT^piov, 
and  then  the  latter  word  must  share  the  local  notion  of  the  former. 

In  Rerum  Ecclesiast.  Contemplatio,  a  liturgical  work  which  is 
generally  attributed  to  Germanus  hut  which  is  “of  very  doubtful 
authenticity  we  meet  passages  which  are  self-explanatory.  In 
this  treatise  on  the  church,  its  furnishings,  and  ceremonies,  the 
author  writes  that  in  the  church  is  found  to  iXoa-r^piov  and  the 
Holy  of  Holies — cv  y  to  IXaxTT^piov,  Kal  ra  Ay ui  twv  We 

learn  what  he  designates  as  IXacTT^piov  when  he  says :  “  Ownaar^pLov 

ecTTLV  IXaxTT^piov,  hf  <S  7rpo<Te(f>€peTo  Trcpt  t^?  apxipTLa^  ??  115 

planation  of  the  liturgy  of  the  Mass,  we  are  told  that,  “as  the 
invisible  God  spoke  to  Moses  and  Moses  to  God,  so  the  priest, 
standing  between  the  two  cherubim  before  the  IXanr^pLov — 6  lep€v<;, 
pecrov  TMv  Svo  ')(epovf3tp  eo^TO)?  iv  tw  tXao'T'qpiia,  converses  silently  with 
God^h^^®  We  see  that  the  sanctuary  of  our  churches  is  contrasted 
with  the  Holy  of  Holies  of  the  0.  T.  and  our  altar  is  compared 
with  the  0.  T.  iXaxjT^piov.  Probably  this  is  the  reference  Suidas 
has  in  mind  when  he  defines  lX<wT^pLov  as  “  dvcnaa-T^piov^  propitia- 
torium :  altare,  supra  quod  per  sacrificia  fiebat  propitiatio  divinique 
Numinis  placatio  It  may  be  added  that  in  the  lexicons  of 

Suidas  IXacTT^piov  is  always  defined  by  the  synonym  dvmaxTT^pLov ; 

MPG,  6G,  297. 

“^MPG,  71,  561. 

Bardenheiwer,  Patrology,  582. 

]\IPG,  98,  385. 

”®MPG,  98,  389. 

“«MPG,  98,  429. 

“’Quoted  from  Suicerus,  Thesaurus  Eccles.,  1448. 

“«Suidae  Lexicon,  II,  114;  Suidas-Bekkerus,  Lexicon,  528. 


86 


which  shows  that  IXaaryptov  obviously  possesses  in  common  with 
OvaiaxjT^piov  the  local  idea. 

»Christodulos,  who  in  the  XI  century  was  patriarch  of  the 
Copts/^®  lays  down  in  his  liturgical  canons  that  the  holy  table 
should  be,  as  a  rule,  within  the  select  part  of  the  church,  and 
therefore  it  is  placed  in  the  middle  of  the  sanctuary,  the  very  Holy 
of  Holies,  where  the  altar  or  the  IXao-TTjpLov  is — rb  Ovaiaar^pLov  ^  Kal 
tXao-TypLov  This  reference  is  perfectly  obvious. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  Coptic  language  employs  for 
the  term  Ovmaar^pLov^  the  expressive  equivalent  JUL^XiepcyCWOVg^J, 
which  literally  means  the  place  of  doing  (the)  sacrificing 
Butler  remarks  that  etymologically  the  Coptic  term  for  altar 
seems  to  correspond  very  closely  with  the  Greek  ’k  This  Coptic 
term,  he  adds,  conveys  the  notion  of  a  place  of  making  sacrifice 

so  that  the  idea  is  clearly  that  of  a  sacrificial  structure  like  the 
Ovmaar^pLov  of  the  Greek  Church  Further  comment  is  un¬ 
necessary. 

3.  The  Confession  of  Altars 

According  to  Anastasius  Bibliothecarius  (IX  cent.)  propitia¬ 
tor  ium  signifies  a  distinct  part  of  the  altar,  to  be  more  exact, 
the  confessio  in  which  the  bodies  of  martyrs  and  confessors  were 
placed.  Over  the  confession  the  altar  was  erected.  In  his  life  of 
Pope  Paschal  we  meet  with  several  such  applications.  Thus  he 
writes  that  Paschal  erected  a  propitiatorium  sacri  altaris  beati 
Petri  apostolorum  principis,  ubi  sacratissimum  corpus  ejus  re- 
quiescit Elsewhere  he  identifies  propitiatorium  with  con¬ 
fessio  :  Propitiatorium  vero  sacri  altaris,  seu  confessionem 
and  again :  Propitiatorium  denique  sacri  altaris,  seu  confes¬ 

sionem  In  the  same  way :  “  Propitiatorium  etiam  altaris  ex 
laminis  argenteis  exornatum  circumduxit,  atque  sacram  confes¬ 
sionem  ejus  interius  exteriusque  cum  rugulis  suis  nobilissime  cir- 
cumstruxit  Anastasius  does  not  mean  the  ciborium  for  we 

also  read ;  “  Fecit  autem  in  eadem  ecclesia  ciborium  ex  argento, 

Cf.  Fortescue,  Lesser  East.  Churches,  235,  London,  1913. 

Daniel,  Codex  Lit.  EccL  Orient.,  208. 

^Coptic  Churches,  II,  The  Altar,  1.  Cf.  Renaudot,  Liturgiaruni  Col- 
lectio,  I,  164,  Londini,  1847. 

»22MPL,  128,  1271-1272. 

“"MPL,  128,  1269-1270. 

“^MPL,  128,  1265-1266. 

’^^:MPL,  128,  1261-1262. 


87 


.  .  .  imo  et  propitiatoriiim  sacri  altaris  ex  argenteis  laminis  miri- 
fice  exornavit  In  these  quotations  propitiatorium  un¬ 

doubtedly  refers  to  the  sepulchre  of  the  martyrs  over  which  the 
altar  was  huiltd^'^  Its  meaning  in  such  a  usage  is  evident,  for  the 
martyrs’  crypt  was  a  special  place  of  veneration.  There  the  faith¬ 
ful  gathered  and  through  the  intercession  of  the  martyr  or  con¬ 
fessor  sought  expiation  for  sins  and  propitiation  and  grace  from 
God  sacrifice  in  honor  of  the  martyr. 

Hugo  Flaviniacensis  (ca.  1100)  also  calls  the  crypt  of  a  saint  a 
^‘^propitiatorium”.  He  describes  the  burial  of  St.  Sanctinus. 

Sacratissimum  corpus  ejus  ad  propiciandum  Heum  miseris  mor- 
talibus  super  altare  in  celesti  propiciatorio  ab  episcopis  honorifice 
repositum  est”.^^®  In  Chronicon  II,  he  again  makes  use  of  the 
word  to  designate  the  confession  of  the  mart3us.  Propicia- 
torium  sane  sanctorum  ”,  he  writes,  exornant  corpora,  quorum 
meritis  floret  ecclesia  These  applications  of  ^^propitiatorium” 
to  the  confession  of  martyrs  are  distinct  evidences  for  the  meaning 
of  locality. 

4.  A  Tomb  or  Sepulchre 

In  the  life  of  St.  Theda,  supposed  to  have  been  written  by 
Basil  of  Seleucia,^®®  we  read  that  the  place  of  burial  is  like 
the  office  of  a  healing  surgeon,  and  it  has  become  the  common 
lXau(TTr]pLOV  of  the  whole  world — (us  dvai  TrdvSrjiJLOv  iaTpelov  tov  tottov, 
Kal  KOLVOV  KeSerdvai  rrj'^  yrj<i  dirda'q-^  tXaur^piov  ”.  Basil  adds  that 
strangers  and  residents  of  the  city  flocked  to  the  tomb,  which  was 
never  deserted  by  devout  clients  of  the  saint.  Some  came  out  of 
reverence  or  to  make  promises  or  to  fulfil  them;  others,  to  obtain 
relief  in  their  pains  or  aid  in  their  spiritual  battles. As  used 
here,  IXoaTyptov  describes  a  special  place  (toVo?)  where  a  higher 

Ibid. 

^  Cf.  Heuser,  REA,  I,  325-327  art.  Confessio. 

MPL,  154,  38.  The  relics  of  martyrs  were  not  placed  immediately 
upon  the  altar,  “  sondern  auf  einem  Geriiste  hinter  der  Mensa,”  as  Probst 
says  in  Kirchenlexikon,  I,  590,  art.  Altar.  This  practice  was  approved 
by  Pope  Leo  IV  (855)  who  says:  ‘‘  Super  altare  nihil  ponatur,  nisi  capsae 
cum  reliquiis  sanctorum”  (MPL,  115,  077). 

"®MPL,  154,  208. 

Tixeront,  Handbook  of  Patrology,  210,  says  this  “life  of  St.  Theda 
in  prose  is  probably  not  the  work  of  Basil  Bardenhewer,  Patrology,  532, 
merely  states  that  Basil  wrote  “  a  long  life  of  the  so-called  protomartyr 
Theda  ”. 

MPG,  85,  500. 


88 


power  is  present  as  salvation  from  physical  or  moral  evils ;  further¬ 
more,  a  place  where  expiation  and  propitiation  are  found:  the 
former,  in  obtaining  through  the  saint’s  intercession  relief  from 
afflictions,  and  the  latter,  in  the  reception  of  grace  from  God. 
Zahn  knows  of  this  passage  but  draws  no  conclusion.  In  reference 
to  such  applications  he  says :  Als  Statten,  wo  man  Siihne  seiner 
Siinden  und  Gnade  bei  Gott  findet,  werden  in  der  jiingeren  Lite- 
ratur  Kirchen,  Kloster,  besonders  auch  die  Altare  nicht  selten 
IXwjT^pia  genannt”.^^^  We  can  only  add  to  this  frank  statement 
that  later  literature  presents  the  reflection  of  an  old,  well  established 
terminology. 

The  completed  study  of  old  and  new  material  has  made  it  clear 
that  IXaxjT^pLov,  in  its  literal  meaning,  has  reference  to  a  locality. 
We  know  that  the  term  has  a  definite  and  determinate  complex 
meaning  and  this  is :  a  sacred  place  where  expiation  and  propitia¬ 
tion  are  accomplished  generally  by  the  means  of  sacrifice  or 
offering. 

Corollary.  The  Adjective  IXaaryjpLO’i.  Along  with  the  substantive 
there  occur  also  sporadically  adjectival  uses  of  the  term.  In  a  re¬ 
cently  discovered  papyrus  of  the  second  century  the  following 
passage  appears :  roi?  ^eot?  elXacrry)  [/5to]  v<?  Ovaia^i  [0e]  vtc?  CTrire- 
Xela-OaL.^^^  On  this  Deissmann  remarks :  “  Ob  hier  lXaorTr]pLo<5  Ovata 
die  Bedeutung  Versohnungsopfer  hat,  oder  Siihnopfer,  ist  nicht  zu 
entscheiden  But  it  is  clear  that  lXa(TTqplov<i  Ovata^  must  signify 
expiatory  and  propitiatory  sacrifices  offered  to  the  gods.  In  lY 
Machabees  xvii^  22  we  read  that  the  seven  martyrs  became,  as  it 
were,  a  substitution  for  the  sins  of  the  nation  and  that  through 
their  blood  and  their  tXaaTrjpLov  death  divine  Providence  saved 
Israel — iStd  tov  mpuaro^  twv  evaefiaHv  eKetvoiV  Kal  tov  iXoAJrrjpiov  Oavarov 
Deissmann  argues  for  the  meaning  “  siihnend  ”  but 
the  propitiatory  element  is  present  also.  The  sacrificial  death  of 
the  martyrs  served  as  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the  people  and  at 
the  same  time  as  propitiation  of  divine  Providence.  Hioephorus 
of  Antioch,  in  his  life  of  St.  Simeon  Stylites,  records  that  God 
visited  the  people  with  a  fatal  pestilence.  Simeon,  recognizing  in 
this  a  punishment  from  God  because  of  the  sins  of  the  people,  in 

Op.  cit.,  184. 

133  Orenfell-Hunt,  rayiim  Towns  and  their  Papyri,  313,  No.  337. 

Op.  cit.,  193. 

Swete,  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  III,  759-760,  Cambridge,  1912. 

Op.  cit.,  194. 


89 


prayer  lifted  up  his  suppliant,  or  rather,  his  propitiatory  hands  to 
God  until  the  pestilence  ceased — iKeTriplov’i,  el  jSovXeL  Be  tAao•^ 
TrjpLov^,  eKreLva<i  Versohnend  ’’  is  Deissmann’s  selection. 

But  we  see  that  the  people  had  offended  God.  Simeon,  as  their 
intercessor,  by  his  prayers  expiated  for  the  people  and  rendered 
God  propitious.  In  the  same  work  Nicephorus  relates  of  a  de¬ 
structive  earthquake  that  took  place  at  Constantinople.  The  mother 
of  St.  Simeon,  perceiving  in  the  earthquake  divine  punishment, 
and  anxious  for  the  salvation  of  the  people,  appealed  to  her  son. 
Simeon,  we  are  told,  retired  to  his  cell  and  did  not  cease  in  his 
supplications  until  divine  mercy  was  shown  and  until  he,  the  sup¬ 
pliant,  found  those  (things)  procuring  IXaxrr^pui  with  God  by  word 
of  mouth — a  Bia  (TTopxLTO^  eyovra  evpev  tXxwT^pLa  tt/oos  ®eoi/  LKecrla}^^ 
The  word  iXaxrr^pva  appears  to  be  used  as  an  adjective  qualifying  a; 
and  this  may  refer  to  the  prayers  or  words  of  Simeon  which  were 
both  expiatory  and  propitiatory. 

Such  examples  again  prove  that  the  term  when  used  as  an 
adjective  faithfully  retains  the  elements  of  expiation  and  pro¬ 
pitiation.  Of  course  it  is  only  natural  that  the  local  notion  should 
disappear  when  the  term  is  employed  as  an  adjective. 


MPG,  86^  3056. 

“®Op.  cit.,  194.  Deissmann  quotes  from  the  Acta  SS.  Mail,  V,  335. 
’»MPG,  86, 3089;  Acta  SS.  Mali,  V,  348. 


CHAPTER  IV 


Application  of  the  Results  to  Rom.  hi,  25 

It  now  remains  to  be  seen  wRether  the  results  of  the  completed 
investigation  are  applicable  to  Rom.  iii,  25.  Before  making  this 
application,  however,  let  us  recapitulate  our  results  and  those  of 
Deissmann  with  his  exegesis  on  the  Pauline  term,  and  let  us 
briefly  examine  other  H.  T.  material. 

In  the  historical  part  it  was  shown  that  the  variety  of  ren¬ 
derings  found  in  the  different  versions  indicates  the  presence  of 
more  than  one  element  in  the  disputed  term.  This  hypothesis  was 
given  greater  probability  by  the  manifold  interpretations  of  modern 
exegetes  who,  in  their  search  for  its  satisfactory  application  to 
Christ,  employed  now  one,  now  another  element.  Among  all 
opinions  the  one  which  applied  IXoar^pLov  to  Christ  as  the  antitype 
of  the  0.  T.  propitiatory  w^as  found  the  most  prominent.  Some 
few  moderns  expressed  the  view  that  the  0.  T.  IXoatt^plov  was  the 
place  of  expiation  or  propitiation  or  manifestation  of  God.  Quota¬ 
tions  from  patristic  writers  emphatically  showed  that  the  0.  T. 
type  was  considered  a  special  locality.  The  patristic  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  Rom.  Ill,  25,  especially  that  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  builds 
up  a  convincing  argument  for  the  conclusion  that  St.  Paul  applied 
the  term  to  Christ  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  proving  that  He 
in  His  sacrifice  literally  fulfilled  all  that  was  typified  by  the  0.  T. 
propitiatory. 

In  the  exegetical  part  it  was  conclusively  demonstrated,  both 
from  profane  and  biblical  Greek  literature,  that  lXdaKea6aL  with  its 
cognates  essentially  contains  the  elements  of  expiation,  propitia¬ 
tion,  and  reconciliation;  and  that  quite  generally  these  acts  were 
procured  by  means  of  sacrifice  or  oblation.  It  was  further  seen 
that  the  substantive  IXaur^piov,  with  its  fundamental  notion  of 
locality,  originated  beyond  all  doubt  in  the  LXX.  The  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  noun  to  various  localities  and  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  was 
confirmative  evidence  for  our  conclusion. 

Deissmann  arrives  at  conclusions  quite  the  reverse.  According 
to  him  the  term  has  no  definitely  fixed  meaning  and,  therefore,  in 
every  application  the  context  must  decide  which  element  is  present. 
In  applying  his  results  to  Rom.  iii,  25,  he  begins  by  saying  there  is 
weder  eine  feste  allgemeingriechische  Verwendung  des  Wortes^ 
90 


91 


noch  eine  feste  ^  biblische  ^  From  this  he  argues  that  there  is 
only  one  general  meaning  which  can  be  considered,  and  this  is: 

iXoATT^pLov  bedentet;  ein  Versohnendes  oder  ein  Siihnendes 
These  statements  must  be  altered  in  the  light  of  the  present  in¬ 
vestigation  which  concludes  with  unmistakable  evidence  that  the 
word  has  a  definitely  fixed  meaning,  attached  to  it  already  by  its 
authors,  the  LXX  writers,  and  traceable  throughout  its  history; 
which  meaning  is  that  of  a  sacred  place  where  expiation  and  pro¬ 
pitiation  are  accomplished  hy  sacrifice. 

Deissmann^s  next  statement  is,  that  the  exegetical  problem  in 
Rom.  Ill,  25  consists  in  ascertaining  what  the  object  of  the  term  is, 
or,  to  put  it  in  his  own  words:  ‘^Was  ist  als  Objekt  des  in  IXacr^ 
TrjpLov  steckenden  IXda-KeaOaL  von  Paulus  gedacht;  Gott?  oder  die 
Menschen  ?  oder  die  iSiinde  ?  He  finds  that  very  probably  sin 
and  sin  alone  is  its  object  and  so,  as  applied  to  Christ,  the  term 
designates  Him  als  der  Suhner  oder  das  'Siihnende  But  the 
upshot  of  our  study  in  its  various  phases,  especially  profane  Greek 
and  the  LXX,  leaves  no  room  for  further  doubt  that  IXdo-KeaOat  and 
its  derivatives  have  as  object  not  sin  alone  but  also  the  Divinity 
and  men.  Hence  it  means  to  expiate  sin,  to  propitiate  God,  and 
thus  to  reconcile  Him  with  man. 

Finally  Deissmann  puts  the  question:  ^^Bezieht  sich  das  Be- 
kenntnis  des  Apostels  auf  den  irdischen  oder  auf  den  erhohten 
Christus  ?  He  believes  St.  Paul  has  in  mind  the  physical  blood 
of  Christ — ‘‘alpui  ist  dann  das  physische,  einmal  vergossene  Blut 
Christi^k  However,  he  does  not  exclude  the  possibility,  or  even 
the  probability,  of  the  second  part  of  the  proposition,  according  to 
which  ev  T(p  avTov  aipxiTL  means  in  der  Blutsgemeinschaft  mit  dem 
erhohten,  pneumatisch-lebendigen  Herrn  Such  a  formulation 
is  undoubtedly  wrong;  for  in  Rom.  iii,  25,  8t.  Paul  does  not  con¬ 
cern  himself  with  the  earthly  or  the  exalted  Christ.  He  knows  only 
the  one  Christ  who  is  both  God  and  man,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  the 
entire  verse  with  its  surrounding  context  demands  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  reality.  The  reference,  therefore,  is  to  the  real  blood  shed 
by  Christ  as  expiation  and  propitiation  for  mankind. 

1.  TAao-Kca^at  and  its  Derivatives  in  the  X.  T. 

In  X.  T.  writings  iXdaKeaOaL  and  its  derivatives  seldom  occurs. 
The  few  examples  that  are  found,  however,  clearly  show  that  here 


^  Op.  cit.,  209. 
*  Op.  cit.,  211. 


"Op.  cit.,  211. 


92 


also  it  has  the  same  sense  as  in  profane  and  0.  T.  literature.  St. 
Luke  employs  it  in  the  parable  of  the  pharisee  and  the  publican 
(xviii^  13).  The  latter,  standing  afar  oft  in  the  temple,  is  con¬ 
scious  of  the  guilt  of  sin.  He  seeks  expiation  and,  striking  his 
breast,  prays  solely  for  God’s  mercy,  pardon,  and  grace:  6  ©eo?, 
tXdo-OrjTL  ixoi  T(o  dfjuapTOiXM.  The  effect  of  his  prayer  is  told  by  our 
Lord  Himself:  the  man  went  down  to  his  house  justified  (v.  19), 
which  means  that  God  was  propitiated  and  reconciled  with  the 
publican.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (ii,  17)  the  double  notion 
is  clearly  discerned.  We  learn  (v.  3)  of  the  salvation  (o-wrrypia?) 
procured  for  us  by  Christ.  Through  His  passion  He  vanquished 
satan  and  delivered  those  who  were  subject  to  him  (10-15) .  There¬ 
fore  in  all  things  Christ  became  like  unto  His  brethren,  that  He 
might  become  a  merciful  and  faithful  High  Priest  before  God  and 
might  expiate  the  sins  of  the  people — eU  to  IXdo-KeaOai  ras  dimprla^ 
Tov  Xaov.  Christ’s  piacular  sacrifice  for  sins  brought  salvation  to 
the  world  and  placated  His  Father. 

The  noun  tAao-^oo?  occurs  twice  in  the  Johannine  epistles.  St. 
John  exhorts  his  readers  to  avoid  sin.  But  should  they  be  so  un¬ 
fortunate  as  to  fall  into  sin,  then  they  need  not  despair  for  Jesus 
Christ  the  Just  is  our  advocate  with  the  Father  (I  John  ii,  1). 
Hot  only  is  He  our  advocate  but  tAac/xo?  ecmv  irepl  twv  dpap- 

TLMv  and  not  merely  for  our  sins  but  also  for  those  of  the 

whole  world  (v.  2).  Sin  was  taken  away  by  Jesus  Christ  and  to 
do  so  He  appeared  on  earth  (iii,  4-8).  We,  therefore,  must  learn 
to  love  God  as  He  has  loved  us ;  for  out  of  love  for  us  He  sent  His 
only  begotten  Son  into  the  world  (iv,  7-9).  It  was  God  who  loved 
us  first  and,  as  manifestation  of  His  love,  dTrecretAev  rdv  vlov  avrov 
iXacrpiov  Trepl  twv  dpLapridiv  ”  (iv,  10).  As  the  context  shows  sin 
is  considered  as  the  evil  oppressing  mankind.  This  God  removed 
when  He  sent  His  Son  who  made  expiation  for  all  sins.  The 
emphasis  that  we  should  love  God  as  He  loved  us  points  to  pro¬ 
pitiation, — ^both  of  these  acts  being  accomplished  by  means  of 
Christ’s  sacrifice.  St.  John  uses  tAatr/xd?  in  its  usual  sense  of  means 
of  expiation  and  propitiation. 

Excepting  Pom.  iii,  25,  IXaaTypiov  is  found  hut  once  and  that  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  It  is  significant  that  in  this  instance 
it  is  used  in  its  original  local  sense.  The  writer  explains  the 
superiority  of  the  H.  T.  to  that  of  the  Old.  The  priesthood  of 
Christ  excells  the  Levitical  priesthood  (vii-viii).  Then  follows 
mention  of  the  tabernacle,  its  divisions  and  contents,  the  author 


93 


stating  that  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  were  the  chernbim  overshadowing 
the  propitiatory  —  -^epovl3t[x  KaraaKLa^ovra  to  iXacrr^pLOV  (iX, 

1-5).  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  then  described  as  the  fulfillment 
of  all  0.  T.  sacrifices;  in  particular  He  is  the  High  Priest  who, 
with  His  own  blood,  entered  hut  once  into  the  holies  and  obtained 
eternal  redemption  (6-28).  The  entire  ninth  chapter  is  an  ac¬ 
cumulation  of  figurative  expressions  in  relation  to  Christ. 

The  meaning  of  IXaarrjpLov  in  Rom.  iii,  25  will  be  firmly  estab¬ 
lished  if  the  sense,  as  furnished  by  the  historico-literary  investiga¬ 
tion  of  the  word,  is  applicable  to  this  verse,  and  if  the  general 
and  immediate  context  confirm  this  application. 

2.  TAacTT^ptoi/  in  Rom.  iii,  25 

A.  A  word  must  be  added  concerning  the  use  of  IXadT^ptov  by 
St.  Paul.  Moderns  have  discussed  this  considerably,  and  the  gen¬ 
erally  accepted  opinion  is,  that  the  Apostle  employed  the  term  not 
as  adjective  but  as  substantive.  Patristic  exegesis,  which  often 
even  made  the  application  of  the  term  to  Christ  more  emphatic 
by  the  addition  of  the  article  ro,  also  demands  the  substantive  use. 
The  literary  investigation  likewise  requires  the  same  conclusion. 
Wherefore  we  hold,  as  our  exegesis  has  already  shown,  that  St. 
Paul  used  the  term  not  as  adjective  but  as  substantive. 

B.  The  Context  of  Bom.  iii,  25.  In  Rom.  i,  16-17  St.  Paul 
states  the  theme  of  his  epistle,  which  is  that  the  Gospel  “is  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth,  to  the 
Jew  first,  and  to  the  Greek.  For  the  justice  of  God  is  revealed 
therein,  from  faith  unto  faith”.  In  contrast  to  the  true  gospel, 
pagan  religion  with  its  false  philosophy,  void  of  faith  and  humility, 
betrays  its  adherents  into  shameful  sins  (i,  18-32).  The  state  of 
the  Jewish  people,  however,  is  not  different.  They  condemn  the 
Gentiles,  yet  do  the  same  things  (ii,  1-4).  Because  of  the  sin¬ 
fulness  of  all  men,  therefore,  the  just  judgment  of  God  will  fall 
upon  them,  for  there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God  (ii,  5-11). 
The  Gentiles  have  as  their  norm  the  law  of  nature  and  their  con¬ 
science,  but  if  they  are  only  hearers  thereof  and  not  doers,  they 
shall  not  be  justified  (ii,  12-16).  And  the  Jew,  despite  his  priority 
of  knowledge  of  God’s  law,  has  failed  in  its  observance.  His  cir¬ 
cumcision,  therefore,  is  no  better  for  him  than  the  uncircumcision 
of  the  heathen.  For,  not  he  is  a  Jew  who  is  such  only  outwardly, 
but  he  who  is  so  inwardly  and  in  reality  (ii,  17-29).  Their  advan¬ 
tages  notwithstanding,  the  Jews  have  proven  unfaithful ;  and  their 


94 


perfidy  is  inexcusable  (iii^  1-8).  These  are  the  conditions  as  the 
Apostle  views  them^  and  he  arraigns  ^^hoth  Jews  and  Greeks  that 
they  are  all  under  sin  (iii,  9).  Universal  failure  is  the  result; 
Jew  and  Gentile  alike  stand  guilty  before  God.  To  give  his  argu¬ 
ment  more  weight  the  Apostle  adds  proof  from  the  0.  T.  (iii^  9-20) . 

!St.  Paul  has  now  stated  his  problem  which  is  the  universality  of 
sin.  He  proceeds  to  explain  the  universal  remedy  for  this  universal 
failure.  This  new  way  of  salvation,  which  is  the  gift  of  God  be¬ 
stowed  on  man  and  manifesting  the  justice  of  God,  is  open  to  every 
one  that  believeth ;  and,  while  independent  of  the  law,  it  is  attested 
"^^by  the  law  and  the  prophets^’  (iii^  21).  It  is  universal  in  ex¬ 
tent,  being  obtainable  “by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  unto  all  and  upon 
all  them  that  believe  in  Him^^  (in,  22).  How,  therefore,  there  is 
no  further  distinction  between  Jew  and  Gentile,  because  all  have 
sinned  and  stand  in  need  of  the  visible  glory  and  divine  manifesta¬ 
tion  of  God  in  His  Son  (in,  23).  In  this,  the  general  context,  St. 
Paul  points  out  the  universality  of  sin  and  contrasts  to  it  the  uni¬ 
versal  salvation  which  is  the  new  way  of  justification.  On  the  part 
of  God,  this  new  way  is  a  free  gift,  and,  on  the  part  of  man,  it  is 
not  merely  a  confidence  in  God’s  mercy  which  results  in  the  cer¬ 
tainty  of  salvation,  but  a  co-operation  of  man’s  free  will  and  in¬ 
tellect  with  the  grace  of  God  whereby  man  becomes  righteous. 

And  now  in  three  verses,  the  immediate  context,  St.  Paul  ex¬ 
plains  in  detail  this  new  way  of  justification;  and  this  marks  our 
arrival,  as  Deissmann  well  words  it,  “  an  der  tiefgriindigen  Stelle 
Eom  3,  25  In  v.  24  the  Apostle  states  that  no  man  merited 
justification,  but  it  was  a  free  gift  on  the  part  of  God  and  was 
obtained  “  Sta  a7roAvrpwcr£t09  Iv  X.p(XTTM  ^lycrov  ”,  that  is,  the 
redemption  procured  by  paying  a  ransom  which  was  the  blood  of 
Christ.  Thus  he  has  prepared  us  for  his  most  emphatic  statement, 
which  is:  ov  TTpolOero  6  ©eo?  IXoATTr^piov  Sia  Trj<;  ttiVtco)?  iv  tm  avTOV 
alpjari.  In  these  words  the  redemption  is  described  in  a  most  vivid 
and  realistic  way.  The  verb  irpoiBero  (set  forth)  refers  to  the 
manner  of  exhibiting  Christ  as  IXacrTrjpLov  and,  as  Lightfoot  cor¬ 
rectly  says,  the  force  of  the  preposition  Trpo  “  is  not  temporal,  but 
local  The  phrase  Sea  Trto-reo)?,  which  indicates  the  source  of 
righteousness  and  the  principal  channel  of  applying  to  ourselves 
the  effects  of  the  aTroXvrpuHTeM^,  testifies  to  the  reality  of  Christ  as 
IXaarypiov.  Likewise  the  words  iv  tw  ovtov  aipban, — the  means  of 

^Op.  cit.,  208. 

"Op.  cit.,  271. 


95 


the  redemption,  distinctly  remind  ns  of  reality  because  Christ  is 
iXaaTijpLov  in  His  own  blood.  Immediately  there  comes  to  mind 
the  oft  repeated  statement  of  patristic  interpretation,  especially 
the  G-reek,  that  Christ  as  IXacrrrjpLov  is  the  reality  (dXrjOeia)  in  con¬ 
trast  to  the  0.  T.  mere  appearance  (tuVo?)  ;  also  the  statement 
that  Christ  is  the  universal  IXaaTrjpiov  in  contrast  to  the  IXaarrjpLov 
of  the  0.  T.,  w^hich  was  exclusively  for  the  Israelites.  Hence,  what 
the  IXaaTTjpLov  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  was  for  the  Israelites  only, 
that  Christ  is  now  become  for  all :  the  universal  remedv  for  the 

4/ 

universality  of  sin  by  His  sacrifice.  In  this  one  word,  in  which 
lies  ^Hhe  key  to  the  conception  of  Christ’s  atoning  death”,  as 
Vincent  ®  aptly  remarks,  St.  Paul  gives  the  solution  of  his  thesis 
that  the  Gospel  is  the  power  of  salvation  to  all.  Does  the  primary, 
literal  meaning  of  IXaaTyjpiov,  which  the  investigation  made  mani¬ 
fest,  also  find  application  in  this  25th  verse?  Beyond  all  doubt 
it  does.  God  has  set  forth  Christ  (the  H.  T.  universal  reality  in 
contrast  to  the  0.  T.  particular  type)  to  become  by  the  sacrifice  of 
His  own  blood  the  place  where  God’s  righteousness  is  shown  to  be 
completely  propitiated — et?  cvSel^lv  rij'^  iStKatocrwrys  avTov,  and  where 
former  sins  are  passed  over — Sta  t^v  irdpeaiv  tw  Trpoyeyovorwv  dpxip- 
TTjpidTiDv.  And  faith  guarantees  the  reality  of  this  antitype.  In  v. 
26  St.  Paul  continues  the  explanation.  Seemingly  unconcerned, 
God  looked  on  at  the  triumph  of  sin  under  the  old  dispensation. 
But  now,  in  setting  forth  His  Son  as  the  place  of  expiation  and 
propitiation.  His  righteousness  is  made  manifest  and  He  makes 
righteous  him  who  is  of  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ.  Wherefore, 
justification  consists  not  in  the  mere  covering  of  sin  and  an  ex¬ 
ternal  declaration  of  man’s  being  justified,  but  in  the  complete 
removal  and  forgiveness  of  sin  and  an  internal  sanctification. 

This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  what  follows  in  the  context. 
If  Christ  by  His  own  blood  has  become  localized  expiation  and 
propitiation,  then,  as  a  consequence,  all  boasting  on  the  part  of 
man  must  cease,  since  man  is  made  righteous  by  a  real  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ  without  the  works  of  the  law  (iii,  27-28).  The 
second  consequence  is  that  the  redemption  is  universal,  including 
Jew  and  Gentile  alike  (iii,  29-31).  Accordingly,  we  see  that  the 
general  as  well  as  the  immediate  context  of  Rom.  iii,  25  fully 
admits  the  interpretation  of  IXaarrjpLov  in  its  fundamental  literal 
sense.  Such  an  interpretation  would  also  be  intelligible  to  St. 
Paul’s  readers.  The  objection  is  raised  by  Sanday-IIeadlam, 

"  Op,  oit.,  4.S, 


96 


Lightfoot,  and  other s^,  that  to  identify  Christ  with  the  0.  T.  place 
of  expiation  and  propitiation,  is  an  nnsnitahle  and  confusing  ap¬ 
plication  since  it  makes  Him  at  once  priest  and  victim  and  the 
actual  place.  This  is  well  answered  by  Boehmer  ^  who  argues  that 
if  Christ  can  he  described  as  entering  the  Holy  of  Holies  with  His 
own  blood  (Hehr.  ix,  13),  ^^warnm  soil  Panins  nicht  .  .  .  den 
blnthherstromten  Leib  Jesn  mit  dem  blntbesprengten  Deckel  der 
Bnndeslade  verglichen  haben  .  .  Other  modern  exegetes  assert 
that  the  application  of  IXaaT^piov  ito  Christ  as  the  antitype  of  the 
0.  T.  type  would  be  meaningless  to  the  Gentile  readers  of  the 
Epistle,  since  they  lacked  the  preliminary  notions  upon  which  that 
figure  is  predicated,  namely,  the  temple,  propitiatory,  sacrifices, 
etc.  But  they  seem  to  forget  that  a  large  portion  of  the  Gentile 
Christians  approached  Christianity  through  the  portals  of  a  pre¬ 
vious  connexion  with  Judaism  A  fortiori  could  St.  Paul  pre¬ 
suppose  a  knowledge  of  the  most  important  ceremony  of  expiation 
and  propitiation,  which  centered  around  the  ri“l_E)3  on  the  part  of 

the  <T€l36fi€voL  Tov  ©coV,  those  Gentiles  who  feared  the  one  God  of 
the  Jews,  who  observed  some  of  the  0.  T.  laws,  and  who  con¬ 
stituted  the  seed  plot  of  Christianity  in  the  early  Christian  Church. 
Again,  those  commentators,  who  maintain  that  the  Pauline  word 
has  nothing  in  common  with  the  0.  T.  tAao-r^ptov,  are  confronted 
with  the  serious  difficulty  of  explaining  the  unanimous  testimony 
of  the  Greek  Fathers  that  Christ  as  IXaar^pLov  is  the  reality  and 
antitype  of  the  0.  T.  symbol  and  type. 

Conclusion 

We  now  possess  a  definite  and  positive  knowledge  of  the  Pauline 
IXadT^piov.  The  sources  of  information  regarding  the  elements  con¬ 
tained  in  the  root-verb  are  undoubtedly  profane  Greek  and  the 
LXX.  The  substantive  IXadTijpLovy  with  its  inherent  notion  of 
locality.  Sit.  Paul  took  from  the  LXX,  the  birthplace  of  the  term. 
Especially  the  use  of  this  word  by  the  LXX  to  designate  the  par¬ 
ticular  place  within  the  Holy  of  Holies,  showed  St.  Paul  the  fitness 
and  appropriateness  of  its  application  to  Christ.  In  applying  that 
one  term  to  Christ  he  could  concisely  and  precisely  embody  his 
belief  in  the  divinity  and  humanity  of  Christ,  as  well  as  clearly 
express  the  reason  and  result  of  Christ’s  sacrifice.  With  this  one 

^Heilslehre  nach  d.  Edmerbriefe,  11. 

®lSanday-Headlani,  op.  cit.,  xxxiv. 


97 


word,  then,  the  Apostle  teaches  that,  as  God  manifested  His  pres¬ 
ence  from  over  the  0.  T.  IXadT^piov,  so  now  He  manifests  His 
presence  in  the  person  of  His  Son;  and,  as  the  blood  of  the  sin- 
olfering  made  expiation  for  sins  and  propitiated  God,  thus  recon¬ 
ciling  Him  with  the  Israelites,  so  now  Christ  in  His  own  blood 
expiated  all  sins  and  propitiated  God,  thus  reconciling  Him  with 
mankind. 

We  can  say  that  the  term  IXaar^pLov  is  difficult  to  grasp  only 
because  of  the  numerous  ideas  for  which  it  stands.  We  now  know 
that  Christ  as  IXuarypiov  sums  up  in  Himself  all  these  ideas.  One 
and  the  same  word  thus  stands  for  both  the  reason  and  effect  of 
Christ’s  atoning  death, — ^the  former :  to  expiate  sin,  to  propitiate 
His  Father,  and  thus  to  reconcile  Him  with  man ;  the  latter :  uni¬ 
versal  redemption  and  salvation.  St.  Paul’s  concept  of  IXaaT^pLov, 
then,  is  this: — By  faith  we  have  the  guarantee  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  set  forth  by  His  Father  to  manifest  His  divinity,  and  to 
become  the  place  where,  by  His  own  blood,  real  expiation  for 
sin  was  made  and  propitiation  of  a  just  God  accomplished,  thus 
effecting  reconciliation  between  an  offended  God  and  sinful  man. 


7 


ABBKEVIATIONS 


BS — Bible  Studies 

DAC — Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Apostolic  Church 
EBi — Encyclopaedia  Biblica 
ERE — ^Hastings,  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics 
ExpT — ^The  Expository  Times 
HBD — 'Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible 
JE — Jewish  Encyclopaedia 

KAT® — Die  Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Testament  (Zimmern) 
MPG — 'Migne,  Patrologia  Graeca  / 

MPL — Migne,  Patrologia  Latina 

REA — Real-Encyclopadie  der  Christlichen  Alterthiimer 
StKr — Studien  und  Kritiken 

ZntlW — Zeitschrift  fur  die  Neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft 


99 


\ 


BIBLIOC^RAPHY 


(The  Patristic  literature  is  taken  from  Migne,  P.  G.  and  P.  L.,  and  is 

not  included  in  this  Bibliography.) 

Abbott,  Lyman,  The  Epistle  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the  Romans,  New  York 
and  Chicago,  1888. 

Acta  Sanctorum  Mali,  Tom.  5,  Baertio,  Fran,  et  lanningo.  Con.,  Parisiis 
et  Romae,  1866. 

Agus,  Josephus,  S.  J.,  Epistola  Beati  Pauli  Apostoli  ad  Romanos,  Ratis- 
bonae  et  Neo  Eboraci,  1888. 

Albertus,  Joannes,  Hesychii  Lexicon,  Tom.  2,  Lugduni  Batavorum,  1746. , 

Alford,  Henry,  The  Greek  Testament,®  Vol.  2,  London,  1865. 

Alting,  Jacobi,  Operum,  Tom.  3,  Amstelaedami,  1686. 

Bahr,  Karl  Christ.  Wilh.,  Symbolik  des  Mosaischen  Cultus,  Vol.  1,  Heidel¬ 
berg,  1837. 

Bardenhewer,  Otto,  Patrology,  The  Lives  and  Works  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  Translated  from  the  Second  Edition  by  Thomas  J.  Shahan, 
Freiburg  im  Breisgau  and  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  1908. 

Barnes,  Albert,  Notes,  Explanatory  and  Practical  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,^®  New  York,  1871. 

Baur,  Ferdinand  Christ.,  Paulus,  Der  Apostel  Jesu  Christi,  Stuttgart,  1845. 

Beck,  J.  T.,  Erklarung  des  Briefes  Pauli  an  die  Romer,  Giitersloh,  1884. 

Beelen,  Joan.  Theod.,  Commentarius  in  Epistolam  S.  Pauli  ad  Romanos, 
Louvanii,  1854. 

Beet,  Joseph  Agar,  Commentary  on  St.  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Romans,’  New 
York,  1891. 

Bekker,  Immanuel,  Suidae  Lexicon,  Berolini,  1854. 

Belsham,  Thomas,  The  Epistles  of  Paul  the  Apostle,  Vol.  1,  London,  1822. 

Bengel,  John  Albert,  Gnomon  of  the  New  Testament,  A  New  Translation 
by  C.  T.  Lewis  and  M.  R.  Vincent,  Vol.  2,  Philadelphia,  1861. 

Bernardini  a  Piconio,  Epistolarum  B.  Pauli  Apostoli  Triplex  Expositio, 
Tom.  1,  Parisiis,  1842. 

Bernstein,  Ignaz,  Jiidische  Sprichworter  und  Redensarten,^  Warschau,  1908. 

Beyschlag,  Willibald,  Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  Vol.  2,  Halle  a.  S.,  1892. 

Bibel,  Die,  Nach  der  Deutschen  Uebersetzung  Martin  Luthers,  Coin,  1876, 

Bisping,  August,  Erklarung  des  Briefes  an  die  Romer,®  Munster,  1870. 

Bleibtreu,  Walter,  Der  Abschnitt  Rom.  3,  21-26,  StKr  (1883). 

Boehmer,  Die  Heilslehre  des  Apostels  Paulus  nach  dem  Romerbriefe  dar- 
gestellt,  Conitz,  1881. 

Bonaventurae,  S.  Doctoris,  Opera,  Tom.  3,  Quaracchi,  1887. 

Bosanquet,  Edwin,  A  Verbal  Paraphrase  of  St.  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Rom¬ 
ans,  London,  1840. 

Bree,  William  Thomas,  The  Plain  Reader’s  Help  in  the  Study  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  Vol.  2,  Coventry,  1822. 

Bretschneider,  Car.  G.,  Lexicon  Manuale  Graeco-Latinum  in  Libros  Novi 
Testamenti,  Tom.  1,  Lipsiae,  1829. 

Briggs,  Charles  Augustus,  The  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  New  York,  1895. 

Brown,  David,  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Edinburgh,  1883. 

Brown,  Francis,  A  Hebrew  and  English  Lexicon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
Based  on  the  Lexicon  of  W.  Gesenius,  Boston  and  New  York,  1907. 

Brown,  John,  An  Exposition  of  the  Epistle  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the 
Romans,  Edinburgh,  1766. 

Bruston,  C.,  Les  Consequences  du  Vrae  Sens  de  lAASTHPION,  ZntlW 
(1906). 


101 


10^ 


Burkitt,  William,  Expository  Notes  with  Practical  Observations  on  the 
New  Testament,  London,  1716. 

Bushnell,  Horace,  The  Vicarious  Sacrifice,  Vol.  1,  New  York,  1877. 

Butler,  Alfred  J.,  The  Ancient  Coptic  Churches  of  Egypt,  Vol.  2,  Oxford, 
1884. 

Calmet,  Augustini,  Commentarius  Literalis  in  Omnes  Libros  Veteris  et 
Novi  Testamenti,  Ed.  Joannes  D.  Mansi,  Tom.  8,  Lucae,  1738. 

Calvini,  Joannis,  Commentarii  in  Omnes  Pauli  Apostoli  Epistolas,  Lute- 
tiae,  1556. 

Castalione,  Sebastiano,  Interprete  Biblia,  Una  cum  eiusdem  Annotationi- 
bus,  Basileae,  1551. 

Chalmers,  Thomas,  Lectures  on  the  Epistle  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the 
Eomans,  New  York,  1854. 

Clark,  George  W.,  Eomans  and  I  and  II  Corinthians,  Philadelphia,  1897. 
(A  People’s  Commentary.) 

Clarke,  James  Freeman,  The  Ideas  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  Boston,  1884. 

Clericus,  Joannes,  Epistolae  Sanctorum  Apostolorum  et  Apocalypsis  S. 
Joannis,^  Erancofurti,  1714. 

Cone,  Orello,  Paul,  the  Man,  the  Missionary,  and  the  Teacher,  London, 
1898. 

Conybeare,  W.  J.  and  Howson,  J.  S.,  The  Life  and  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
Vol.  2,  London,  1853. 

Coptic  Version,  The,  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  Southern  Dialect,  other¬ 
wise  called  Sahidic  and  Thebaic,  Vol.  4,  The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
Oxford,  1920. 

Cornelii  a  Lapide,  S.  J.,  Commentaria  in  Scripturam  Sacram  accurate 
recognovit  ac  notis  illustravit  Augustinus  Crampton,  Tom.  1,  Parisiis, 
1859,  Tom.  18,  Parisiis,  1861. 

Comely,  Eudolfus,  S.  J.,  Commentarius  in  S.  Pauli  Apostoli  Epistolas. 
Epistola  ad  Eomanos,  Parisiis,  1896.  (Cursus  Scripturae  Sacrae.) 

Cowles,  Henry,  The  Longer  Epistle  of  Paul,  viz.,  Eomans,  I  and  II  Cor¬ 
inthians,  New  York,  1880. 

Cremer,  Hermann,  Biblisch-theologisches  Wdrterbuch  der  Neutestament- 
lichen  Gracitat,®  Gotha,  1902. 

Critici  Sacri,  Tom.  7,  Exhibens  Annotata  in  Epistolam  ad  Eomanos,  etc., 
Amstelaedami,  1698. 

Daniel,  Hermanns  A.,  Codex  Liturgicus  Ecclesiae  Orientalis,  Tom.  4, 
Lipsiae,  1853. 

Deissmann,  Adolf,  Bible  Studies,®  Authorized  Translation  by  Alexander 
Grieve,  Edinburgh,  1909. 

Deissmann,  Adolf,  IAA2THP102  und  lAASTHPION,  Eine  Lexikalische 
Studie,  ZntlW  (1903). 

Denney,  James,  St.  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Eomans,  London,  1900.  (Exposi¬ 
tor’s  Greek  Testament,  Vol.  2.) 

De  Wette,  W.  M.  L.,  Kurze  Erklarung  des  Briefes  an  die  Eomer,*  Leipzig, 
1847. 

Dibellius,  Martin,  Die  Lade  Jahves,  Eine  Eeligionsgeschichtliche  Unter- 
suchung,  Gottingen,  1906. 

Dillmann,  August,  Die  Bucher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,®  Leipzig,  1897. 

Diodati,  John,  Pious  and  Learned  Annotations  upon  the  Holy  Bible,® 
London,  1651. 

Drummond,  James,  The  Epistles  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the  Thessaloniaris, 
Corinthians,  Galatians,  Eomans  and  Philippians,  New  York  and  Lon¬ 
don,  1899. 

DuCange,  Carolus,  Glossarium  ad  Scriptores  Mediae  et  Infimae  Graeci- 
tatis,  Tom.  1,  Lugduni,  1688. 

Eisenmenger,  Johannes  Andreas,  Entdecktes  Judenthum,  Konigsberg  in 
Preussen,  1711. 


103 


Eisner,  Jacobi,  Observationes  Sacrae  in  Novi  Foederis  Libros,  Toni.  2, 
Trajecti  ad  Rhenum,  1728. 

Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  Edited  by  T.  K.  Cheyne  and  J.  Sutherland  Black, 
Vol.  4,  London,  1903. 

Estii,  Guilielmi,  In  Omnes  D.  Pauli  Epistolas,  item  in  Catholicas,  Com- 
mentarii,  Tom.  1,  Moguntiae,  1858. 

Feine,  Paul,  Tlieologie  des  Neuen  Testaments,^  Leipzig,  1912. 

Field,  Fridericus,  Origenis  Hexaplorum  quae  supersunt,  save  Veterum 
Interpretum  Graecorum  in  Totum  Vetus  Testamentum  Fragmenta, 
Tom.  1,  Oxonii,  1875. 

Flavii,  Josephi,  Opera,  quae  reperiri  potuerunt.  Omnia,  Ed.  Joannes  Hud¬ 
son,  Oxonii,  1720. 

Forbes,  John,  Analytical  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Edin¬ 
burgh,  1868. 

Ford,  D.  B.,  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Philadelphia,  1889.- 

Fritzsche,  Car.  Frid.  Aug.,  Pauli  ad  Romanos  Epistola,  Tom.  1,  Halls  Saxo- 
num,  1836. 

Funke,  George,  Ein  Dogmatisch-exegetischer  Versuch  iiber  Rom.  3,  25  und 
26,  StKr  (1842), 

Gaebelein,  A.  C.,  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  New  York,  1916. 

Gesenii,  Gulielmi,  Thesaurus  Philologicus  Criticus  Linguae  Hebraeae  et 
Chaldaeae  Veteris  Testamenti,  Tom.  2,  Lipsiae,  1839. 

Gifford,  E.  H.,  Commentary  on  Romans,  New  York,  1886.  (The  Bible 
Commentary,  Vol.  3.) 

Godet,  F.,  Commentary  on  St.  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Translated 
from  the  French  by  A.  Cusin;  Translation  Revised  and  Edited  by 
Talbot  W.  Chambers,  New  York,  1889. 

Godwin,  John  H.,  The  Epistle  of  the  Apostle  Paul  to  the  Romans,  London, 
1873. 

Goldschmidt,  Lazarus,  Her  Babylonische  Talmud,  8  Vols.,  Berlin,  1897-1914. 

Gray,  James  C.,  The  Biblical  Museum,  A  Collection  of  Notes  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  Revised  by  G.  M.  Adams,  Vol.  2,  New  York,  1898. 

Grenfell,  B.  P.  and  Hunt,  A.  S.,  Fayum  Towns  and  their  Papyri,  London, 
1900. 

Grimm,  Carlo  Lud.  Willib.,  Lexicon  Graeco-Latinum  in  Libros  Novi  Testa¬ 
menti,  Lipsiae,  1868. 

Grotii,  Hugonis,  Operum  Theologicorum,  Tomus  Tertius  continens  Annota- 
tiones  in  Epistolas  Apostolicas  ©t  Apocalypsim,  Basileae,  1732. 

Gurlitt,  J.  F.  K.,  Studien  zur  Erklarung  Rom.  3,  25,  StKr  (1840). 

Guyse,  John,  The  Practical  Expositor  or  an  Exposition  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,^  Vol.  3,  Edinburgh,  1775. 

Hammond,  H.,  A  Paraphrase  and  Annotations  upon  all  the  Books  of  the 
New  Testament,  London,  1702. 

Hastings,  James,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  edited  by.  New  York,  1909. 

Hastings,  James,  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics,  edited  by.  New 
York,  Vol.  1,  1908;  Vol.  5,  1914;  Vol.  10,  1920;  Vol.  11,  1921. 

Hastings,  James,  Dictionary  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  Vol.  2,  New  York, 
1918. 

Henry,  Mathew,  An  Exposition  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  Vol.  9, 
London,  1866. 

Hesychii,  Lexicon,  Ex  autographis  partim  recensuit,  partim  nunc  primum 
edidit,  suasque  adimadversiones  perpetuas  adjecit  Joannes  Alberti, 
Tom.  2,  Lugduni  Batavorum,  1766. 

Hobart,  Alvah  S.,  Transplanted  Truths  or  Expositions  of  Great  Texts  in 
Romans,  Philadelphia,  1919. 

Hodge,  Charles,  A  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  London, 
1837. 

Hofmann,  J.  Chr.  K.  v.,  Der  Schriftbeweis,  der  zweilen  Ilillfte  erste  Abteil- 
ung,  Nbrdlingen,  1853. 


104 


Hofmann,  J.  Chr.  K.  v.,  Die  Heilige  Schrift  Neuen  Testaments,  Dritter 
Teil,  Nordlingen,  1868. 

Holden,  George,  The  Christian  Expositor,  Vol.  2,  New  Testament,  London 
(no  date) . 

Holtzmann,  Heinrich  Julius,  Lehrbuch  der  Neutestamentlichen  Theologie,® 
Tubingen,  1911. 

Horner,  G.,  The  Coptic  Version  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  Northern 
Dialect,  Vol.  3,  Oxford,  1905. 

Jacobs,  Henry  E.,  Annotations  on  the  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Komans  and 
I  Corinthians,  Chaps.  I-VI,  New  York,  1896.  (Lutheran  Commentary, 
Vol.  7.) 

Jowett,  Benjamin,  The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Thessalonians,  Gala¬ 
tians,  and  Komans,^  Vol.  2,  London,  1859. 

Jiilicher,  Adolf,  Der  Brief  an  die  Kbmer,  Gottingen,  1908.  (Die  Schriften 
des  Neuen  Testamentes,^  Band  2.) 

Kahnis,  Karl  Fried.  Aug.,  Die  Lutherische  Dogmatik,  Vol.  1,  Leipzig,  1861. 

Kneeland,  Abner,  The  New  Testament  in  Greek  and  English,  Vol.  2,  Phila¬ 
delphia,  1823. 

Knight,  Kobert,  A  Critical  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  the 
Apostle  to  the  Homans,  London,  1854. 

Konig,  Edward,  Historisch-Kritisches  Lehrgebaude  der  Hebraischen 
Sprache,  Vol.  2,  Leipzig,  1895. 

Koppe,  Joh.  Benj.,  Novum  Testamentum  Graece,®  Tom.  4,  Gottingae,  1824. 

Kraus,  F.  X.,  Real-Encyclopadie  der  Christlichen  Alterthiimer,  Freiburg 
im  Breisgau,  Band  1,  1882,  Band  2,  1886. 

Kruger,  Theodor,  Die  Eechtfertigung  nach  dem  Lehrbegriff  des  Briefes 
Pauli  an  die  Romer,  Bromberg,  1892. 

Kypke,  Georgii  Davidis,  Observationes  Sacrae  in  Novi  Foederis  Libros, 
Tom.  1,  Wratislaviae,  1755. 

Lagarde  de,  Paul,  Uebersicht  iiber  die  im  Aramaischen,  Arabischen,  und 
Hebraischen  iibliche  Bildung  der  Nomina,  Gottingen,  1889. 

LaGrange,  P.  M.  J.,  Saint  Paul  Epitre  aux  Romains,  Paris,  1916. 

Lange,  John  Peter,  The  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Romans,  Translated  from 
the  German  by  J.  F.  Hurst,  Revised,  enlarged  and  edited  by  P.  Schaff, 
New  York,  1870.  (A  Commentary  on  the  Holy  Scriptures,  Vol.  5.) 

Lattey,  Cuthbert,  S.  J.,  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  London,  1920.  (West¬ 
minster  Version  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  Vol.  3,  Part  4.) 

Lechner,  Petrus,  Die  Heilige  Schrift  des  Neuen  Testamentes,  Miinchen, 
1881. 

Liddell,  Henry  G.  and  Scott,  Robert,  A  Greek-English  Lexicon,®  New  York, 
1897. 

Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  Notes  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  London,  1904. 

Lipsius,  Richard  A.,  Die  Paulinisohe  Rechtfertigungslehre,  Leipzig,  1853. 

Locke,  John,  A  Paraphrase  and  Notes  on  the  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Gala¬ 
tians,  Corinthians,  Romans,  and  Ephesians,  London,  1824.  (The 
Works  of  J.  Locke,  Vol.  7.) 

Luthardt,  Chr.  Ernst,  Der  Brief  Pauli  an  die  Romer,  Nordlingen,  1887. 

MacEvilly,  John,  An  Exposition  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  and  of  the 
Catholic  Epistles,  Vol.  1,  Dublin,  1898. 

McGarvey,  J.  W.  and  Pendleton,  P.  Y.,  Thessalonians,  Corinthians,  Gala¬ 
tians,  and  Romans,  Cincinnati,  1916.  (The  Standard  Bible  Com¬ 
mentary.  ) 

Macknight,  James,  A  New  Literal  Translation  from  the  Original  Greek 
of  all  the  Apostolical  Epistles,  Philadelphia,  1835. 

Menochii,  Joannis  Stephani,  Commentarii  Totius  Sacrae  Scripturae,  Tom. 
2,  Avenione,  1768. 

Meyer,  Heinrich,  Aug.  Wilh.,  Kritisch-exegetisches  Handbuch  iiber  den 
Brief  des  Paulus  an  die  Romer,*  Gottingen,  1865. 


105 


Miller,  John,  Commentary  of  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Princeton, 
1887. 

Morison,  James,  A  Critical  Exposition  of  the  Third  Chapter  of  Paul’s 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  London,  1866. 

Moule,  Handley,  C.  G.,  The  Epistle  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the  Romans, 
Cambridge,  1879.  (The  Cambridge  Bible.) 

Moule,  Handley  C.  G.,  The  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans,  New  York, 
1894.  (The  Expositor’s  Bible.) 

Moulton,  J.  H.  and  Milligan,  G.,  The  Vocabulary  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
London,  Parts  I  and  II,  1915,  Part  IV,  1920. 

New  Testament,  The,  In  an  improved  Version  upon  the  Basis  of  Arch¬ 
bishop  Newcome’s  New  Translation,  Boston,  1809. 

Olshausen,  Herman,  Biblical  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  Trans¬ 
lated  from  the  German  for  Foreign  Theological  Library,  revised  after 
the  Fourth  German  Edition  by  A.  C.  Kendrick,  Vol.  .3,  New  York,  1863. 

Orfali,  Gaudentius,  0.  F.  M.,  De  Area  Foederis,  Parisiis,  1918. 

Otto,  E.,  Erklarung  des  Brief es  Pauli  an  die  Romer,  St.  Louis,  1883. 

Paige,  Lucius  R.,  A  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  4,  The  Epis¬ 
tle  to  the  Romans,  Boston,  1857. 

Parry,  R.  St.  John,  The  Epistle  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the  Romans,  Cam¬ 
bridge,  1912. 

Paton,  W.  R.  and  Hicks,  E.  L.,  The  Inscriptions  of  Cos,  Oxford,  1891. 

Philippi,  Friedrich  Adolph,  Commentary  on  St.  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  Translated  from  the  Third  Improved  and  Enlarged  Edition 
by  J.  S.  Banks,  Vol.  1,  Edinburgh,  1878. 

Philonis,  Judaei,  Opera  Quae  Reperiri  Potuerunt  Omnia,  etc.,  Ed.  Thomas 
Mangey,  London,  1742. 

Plumer,  William  S.,  Commentary  on  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  New 
York,  1870. 

Pool,  Mathew,  Annotations  upon  the  Holy  Bible,  Vol.  3,  New  York,  1853. 

Prat,  F.,  La  Theologie  de  Saint  Paul,^  Premiere  Partie,  Paris,  1913. 

Preuschen,  Edwin,  Griechisch-Deutsches  Handworterbuch  zu  den  Schriften 
des  Neuen  Testamentes,  Gieszen,  1910. 

Priestley,  Joseph,  Notes  on  all  the  Books  of  Scripture,  Vol.  4,  Northum¬ 
berland,  1804. 

Rashdall,  Hastings,  The  Idea  of  Atonement  in  Christian  Theology,  London, 
1920. 

Reischl,  Wilhelm,  Die  Heilige  Schrift  des  Neuen  Testaments,  Regensburg, 
1866. 

Ripley,  Henry  J.,  The  Epistle  of  the  Apostle  Paul  to  the  Romans,  Boston, 
1857. 

Ritschl,  Albrecht,  Die  Christliche  Lehre  von  der  Rechfertigung  und  Ver- 
sohnung,^  Vol.  2,  Bonn,  1882. 

Robertson,  A.  T.,  A  Grammar  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  in  the  Light 
of  Historical  Research,®  New  York,  1919. 

Robinson,  Edward,  A  Greek  and  English  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament, 
Boston,  1836. 

Rosenmulleri,  Jo.  Georgii,  Scholia  in  Novum  Testamentum,  Tom.  3,  No- 
rimbergae,  1829. 

Riickert,  L.  J.,  Commentar  iiber  den  Brief  Pauli  an  die  Romer,  Vol.  1, 
Leipzig,  1839. 

Salianus,  Jacobus,  Annalium  Ecclesiasticorum  Veteris  Testamenti  Epitome, 
Rothomagi,  1655. 

Sanday,  William  and  Headlam,  Arthur,  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  New 
York,  1922.  (International  Critical  Commentary.) 

Sanders,  Daniel,  Worterbuch  der  Deutschen  Sprache,  Vol.  1,  Leipzig,  1876. 

Schaefer,  Aloys,  Erklhrung  des  Briefes  an  die  Romer,  MUnster  i.  W.,  1891. 

Schaff,  Philip,  A  Popular  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  3, 
Edinburgh,  1883. 


106 


Schleusner,  Joh.  Fried.,  Novns  Thesaurus  Philologico-Criticus,  Sive  Lexi¬ 
con  in  LXX  et  Eeliquos  Interpretes  Graecos  ac  Scriptures  Apocryphos 
Veteris  Testamenti,  Tom.  3,  Lipsiae,  1821. 

Schleusner,  Joh.  Fried.,  Novum  Lexicon  Graeco-Latinum  in  Novum  Testa- 
mentum,  Tom.  1,  Londini,  1829. 

Schweizer,  Alex.,  Die  Lelure  des  Apostels  Paulus  vom  Erldsenden  Tode 
Christi,  StKr  (1858). 

Scofield,  Cyrus  I.,  The  New  Testament  and  Psalms,  New  York,  1920. 

Seeberg,  Alfred,  Der  Tod  Christi  in  Seiner  Bedeutung  fiir  die  Erldsung, 
Leipzig,  1895. 

Shedd,  William  G.  T.,  A  Critical  and  Doctrinal  Commentary  upon  the 
Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Eomans,  New  York,  1893. 

Sheldon,  Henry  C.,  New  Testament  Theology,  New  York,  1911. 

Sickenberger,  Joseph,  Die  Beiden  Briefe  des  HI.  Paulus  and  die  Korinther, 
und  sein  Brief  an  die  Eomer,  Bonn,  1919. 

Stevens,  George  Baker,  The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  New  York, 
1899. 

Stiller,  James  M.,  The  Epistle  to  the  Eomans,  New  York,  1897. 

Storrer,  J.,  Der  Brief  Pauli  an  die  Eomer,  Buffalo,  1890. 

Stuart,  Moses,  A  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans,^  London,  1853. 

Suiceri,  Joh.  Caspar!,  Thesaurus  Ecclesiasticus  e  Patribus  Graecis,®  Tom.  1, 
Trajecti  ad  Ehenum,  1746. 

Suidae  Lexicon,  Graece  et  Latine,  Tom.  2,  Ed.  Ludolphus  Kusterus,  Canta- 
brigiae,  1705. 

Taylor,  John  A.,  A  Paraphrase  with  Notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans,® 
London,  1754. 

Thayer,  Joseph  Henry,  A  Greek-English  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament, 
Being  Grimm’s  Wilke’s  Clavis  Novi  Testamenti,  Translated,  Eevised 
and  Enlarged,  New  York,  1889. 

Tholuck,  Friedrich  Aug.  Gott.,  Auslegung  des  Briefes  Pauli  an  die  Eomer,® 
Berlin,  1828. 

Tirini,  Jacobi,  In  Universam  S.  Scripturam  Commentarius,  Tom.  4,  Tau- 
rini,  1883. 

Tixeront,  J.,  A  Handbook  of  Patrology,  Authorized  Translation,  Based 
upon  the  Fourth  French  Edition,  St.  Louis,  1920. 

Tostati,  Alphonsi,  Operum,  Tom.  2,  Continens  Commentaria  in  Exodum, 
Colon! ae  Aggrippinae,  1613. 

Trollope,  William,  Analecta  Theologica,  A  Critical,  Philological,  and  Exe- 
getical  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  2,  London,  1842. 

Usteri,  Leonhard,  Entwicklung  des  Paulinischen  Lehrbegriffes,^  Zurich, 
1834. 

Vaughan,  C.  J.,  St.  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Eomans  with  Notes,  London, 
1893. 

Vincent,  Marvin  E.,  Word  Studies  in  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  3,  New 
York,  1890. 

Vitringa,  Campegi,  Archisynagogus  Observationibus  Novis  Illustratus, 
Franequerae,  1686. 

Wahl,  Christ.  Abraham,  Clavis  Novi  Testamenti  Philologica,®  Lipsiae, 
1843. 

Wardlaw,  Ealph,  Two  Essays:  I,  On  the  Assurance  of  Faith,  II,  On  the 
Extent  of  the  Atonement  and  Universal  Pardon,  New  York,  1830. 

Weber,  Ferdinand,  Vom  Zorne  Gottes,  Erlangen,  1862. 

Weidner,  Eevere  Franklin,  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  New 
York. 

Weigand,  Fr.  L.  K.,  Deutsches  Worterbuch,  Herausgegeben  von  Hermann 
Hirt,  Vol.  1,  Gieszen,  1909. 

Weinel,  H.,  St.  Paul,  The  Man,  and  His  Work,  Translated  by  G.  A.  Biene- 
mann  and  Edited  by  W.  D.  Morrison,  London,  1906. 


107 


Weiss,  Bernhard,  Die  Paulinischen  Briefe  und  der  Hebriierbrief,^  Leipzig, 
1902. 

Weiss,  Bernhard,  Das  Xeue  Testament  nacb  D.  Martin  Luthers  berichtiger 
Uebersetzung,  Vol.  2,  Leipzig,  1907. 

Wbedon,  D.  D.,  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  3,  New  York, 
1871. 

Whitby,  Daniel,  A  Critical  Commentary  and  Paraphrase  on  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  Vol.  4,  Philadelphia,  1864. 

Winer,  George  Benedict,  A  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament  Diction,  Trans¬ 
lated  from  the  Sixthj  Edition  of  the  Original  by  Edward  Masson, 
Edinburgh,  1861. 

Winer,  George  Benedict,  Grammatik  des  Neutestamentlichen  Sprach- 
idioms,  Achte  Auflage  neubearbeitet  von  Paul  W.  Schmiedel,  Vol.  1, 
Gottingen,  1894. 

Wordsworth,  Chr.,  The  New  Testament  of  Our  Lord  and  Savioi?  Jesus 
Christ  in  the  Original  Greek,  London,  1861. 

Zahn,  Theodor,  Der  Brief  des  Paulus  an  die  Bomer,^  Leipzig,  1910. 

Zeller,  Paul,  Biblisches  Handworterbuch,®  Stuttgart,  1912. 

Zimmern,  H.,  Die  Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Testament,®  Berlin,  1903. 

Zorell,  Fran.  S.  J.,  Novi  Testamenti  Lexicon  Graecum,  Parisiis,  1911. 


Universitas  Catholic  a  Americae 


Washington,  D.  C. 


S.  Facultas  Theologica,  1922-1923 


No.  21. 


THESES 


DEUS  LUX  MEA 


THESES 

QUAS 

AD  DOCTORIS  GRADUM 
IN 

SACRA  THEOLOGIA 

APUD  UNIVERSITATEM  CATHOLICAM  AMERICAE 

CON-SEQUENDUM 
PUBLICE  PROPUGNABIT 
ROMUALDUS  ALPHONSUS  MOLLAUN"^  0.  F.  M. 
PROVINCIAE  S.  JOANNIS  BAPTISTAE  CINCINNATENSIS 
SACRAE  THEOLOGIAE  LICENTIATUS 


l» 


£ 


THESES 


I 

The  importance  of  Rome  for  the  propagation  of  Christianity  was  the 
motive  for  St.  Paul’s  epistle  to  the  Romans. 


II 

The  humanitarian  and  universalistic  ideas  of  Stoicism,  which  were 
permeating  Roman  society  at  the  time  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  paved 
the  way  for  the  new  universalism  of  the  gospel  of  Christ. 

III 

At  the  time  of  St.  Paul’s  epistle  to  the  Romans  the  Jewish  element  in 
the  Roman  community  was  well  organized,  influential,  and  enjoyed  impe¬ 
rial  privileges. 

IV 

The  Gentiles  in  the  Roman  community,  who  sought  a  higher  notion  of 
God  and  who  observed  a  part  of  the  Jewish  law  constituted  a  fertile  seed 
plot  for  Christianity. 

V 

The  arguments  adduced  by  modern  criticism  to  explain  the  foundation 
of  the  Church  at  Rome  by  some  disciples  of  St.  Paul  are  not  conclusive. 

VI 

The  best  substantiated  and  more  probable  opinion  is  that  the  Church 
at  Rome  was  founded  by  St.  Peter. 

VII 

In  the  introduction  to  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  (I,  1-7)  St.  Paul  sets 
forth  a  remarkable  theological  compendium. 

VIII 

In  New  Testament  writings  SiKaiou  does  not  signify  to  declare  righteous, 
but  to  make  righteous  by  the  removal  of  sin. 


IX 

'IXoar-^piov  in  Rom.  Ill,  25  designates  Christ  as  the  real  sacrificial  place 
of  expiation  and  propitiation. 

X 


The  literary  source  for  the  Pauline 
the  LXX. 


XI 


usage  of  IXaffT'qpiov 


was  ultimately 


That  the  Pauline  term  in  Rom.  Ill,  25  describes  Christ  as  the  reality 
of  the  Old  Testament  symbol  is  distinctly  shown  by  the  unanimous  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  Greek  Fathers. 

XII 

Deissmann’s  interpretation  of  VKacrripiov  in  Rom.  Ill,  25  as  a  means  of 
expiation  or  propitiation  or  as  a  propitiatory  gift  is  a  perversion  of  the 
natural  historical  development  of  the  term. 


XIII 


The  application  of  the  term  IXaarripLop  to  statues  and  monuments  de¬ 
mands  the  meaning  of  a  real  or  symbolic  place  of  expiation  and  propi¬ 
tiation. 

8 


113 


114- 


XIV 

The  application  of  the  term  IXacT'^piov  to  churches,  monasteries,  sanctu¬ 
aries,  altars,  etc.,  and  also  the  characteristic  tendency  of  words  ending  in 
Trjpiov  offer  further  evidence  that  the  fundamental  meaning  of  the  word  is 
that  of  locality. 

XV 

In  Rom.  Ill,  25  the  phrases  “  through  faith  ”  and  “  in  His  blood  ”  refer 
to  the  reality  of  Christ’s  sacrifice. 

XVI 

In  profane  Greek  literature  the  root -verb  IXdaKeadai  contains  the  ele¬ 
ments  of  expiation  and  propitiation,  which  were  accomplished  by  the 
means  of  sacrifice  or  offering. 

XVII 

The  omission  of  chapters  XV  and  XVI  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  in 
several  MSS.  and  some  Fathers  is  due  to  the  influence  exercised  by  the 
text  of  Marcion. 

XVIII 

Despite  the  difficulties  surrounding  the  address  of  salutation  in  Rom. 
XVI,  1-24,  the  integrity  of  these  verses  can  be  successfully  defended. 

XIX 

The  literary  problem  in  the  Synoptic  question  cannot  be  solved  by  the 
so-called  theory  of  Oral  Tradition. 

XX 

The  best  solution  to  the  Synoptic  problem  seems  to  be  that  the  evan¬ 
gelists  made  use  of  pre-gospel  sources,  which  originated  in  Jerusalem. 

XXI 

Many  objections  of  modern  criticism  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  can  be  satisfactorily  answered  by  applying  the  principles 
enunciated  by  the  Biblical  Commission  on  June  27,  190fi. 

XXII 

The  arguments  advanced  by  the  advocates  of  the  development  hypo¬ 
thesis  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  are  neither  con¬ 
clusive  nor  convincing. 

XXIII 

The  external  and  internal  evidence  furnishes  a  powerful  argument  for 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

XXIV 

The  numerous  and  striking  coincidences  between  the  biblical  (Gen.  I,  1- 
II,  4)  and  the  Assyro-Babylonian  account  of  the  creation,  must  be  explained 
by  this  that  both  had  for  a  common  basis  an  early  tradition. 

XXV 

The  similarities  between  the  scriptural  report  of  the  flood  and  that  of 
the  Gilgamgs  Epos  do  not  postulate  a  dependence  of  the  former  upon  the 
latter. 

XXVI 

A  comparison  of  Hammurabi’s  laws  with  the  Mosaic  decrees  reveals 
some  similarities,  but  there  is  no  suggestion  that  the  latter  are  modeled 
upon  or  borrowed  from  the  former. 

XXVII 

The  differences  in  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  formulated  by  the 


115 


Council  of  Trent  and  that  defended  by  Origen  and  St.  Jerome,  may  be 
accounted  for  by  the  different  tests  of  canonicity  used. 

XXVIII 

The  view  of  some  critics  that  the  discourses  of  Eliu  (Job.  XXXI,  1- 
XXXVII,  24)  are  a  later  interpolation  is  untenable  from  a  linguistic  as 
well  as  from  the  contextual  standpoint. 

XXIX 

Rom.  T,  18-23  plainly  manifests  a  literary  dependence  on  Wis.  XII,  24- 
XIII,  10. 

XXX 

The  Old  Testament  usage  of  iXdcrKeadai — 15?  shows  that  the  term  con¬ 
tains  the  notions  of  expiation  and  propitiation,  which  were  ordinarily 
effected  by  the  means  of  sacrifice. 

XXXI 

The  existence  of  God  can  be  certainly  known  by  the  natural  light  of 
human  reason  through  created  things. 

XXXII 

Holy  Scripture  and  Patristic  teaching  bear  testimony  to  the  immediate 
creation  by  God  of  the  body  and  soul  of  the  first  man. 

XXXIII 

St.  PauPs  doctrine  on  justification  is  clearly  set  forth  in  Rom.  Ill,  21-30. 

XXIV 

Patristic  exegesis  offers  conclusive  evidence  that  the  term  iXacTi^pLov  in 
Rom.  Ill,  25  contains  a  profession  of  Christ’s  divinity. 

XXV 

“  The  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  in  the  first  instant  of  her  conception,  by  a 
singular  grace  and  privilege  granted  to  her  by  Almighty  God,  through  the 
merits  of  Jesus  Christ,  Saviour  of  mankind,  was  preserved  from  all  stain 
of  original  sin.”  (Ineffabilis  Deus,  Pius  IX,  Dec.  8,  1854.) 

XXXVI 

The  wonderful  cures  of  Christ  cannot  adequately  be  explained  as  effects 
brought  about  through  the  natural  agency  of  powerful  suggestion. 

XXXVII 

The  miracles  related  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels,  resting  as  they  do  on  the 
unimpeachable  testimony  of  eye-witnesses,  cannot  rightly  be  impugned. 

XXXVIII 

The  conviction  of  the  Apostles  that  Jesus  arose  from  the  dead,  cannot 
satisfactorily  be  accounted  for  apart  from  the  reality  of  the  resurrection, 

XXXIX 

The  note  of  Catholicity  is  verified  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  alone. 

XL 

A  strong  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity  is  to  be  found  in  its 
extraordinary  spread  in  the  first  two  centuries. 

XLI 

The  theory  of  Kant,  that  a  person  has  a  right  to  do  everything  that 
does  not  interfere  with  the  equal  liberty  of  others,  is  incapable  of  appli¬ 
cation  if  interpreted  objectively;  understood  in  a  completely  subjective 
sense,  it  would  justify  and  legalize  unlawful  conduct. 


116 


XLII 

The  assertion  that  rights  are  derived  from  society,  that  they  exist  for  a 
social  end,  and  shauld  be  exercised  chiefly  for  the  social  welfare,  is  unjus¬ 
tifiable  and  unwarranted. 

XLIII 

Certain  rights  of  every  individual  are  not  conferred  upon  him  by  society, 
but  are  a  prerogative  of  his  rational  nature. 

XLIV 

The  obligation  and  the  right  of  providing  education  for  the  child  belong, 
by  natural  law,  primarily  to  the  parents. 

XLV 

State  monopoly  of  education  abrogates  the  fundamental  rights  of  the 
parents  as  well  as  those  of  the  Church. 

XLVI 

The  Sacraments  of  the  New  Testament  are  really  and  truly  efficient 
causes  ex  opere  operate,  producing  their  effects  independently  of  the  merits 
and  disposition  of  the  recipient. 

XLVII 

The  valid  administration  of  a  Sacrament  requires  on  the  part  of  the 
minister  the  intention  faciendi  quod  facit  Ecclesia. 

XLVIII 

Baptism  may  be  administered  either  by  effusion,  immersion  or  aspersion. 

XLIX 

For  the  valid  administration  of  Extreme  Unction  the  recipient  must  be 
baptized,  dangerously  ill,  and  morally  responsible. 

L 

It  may  be  held  as  the  more  probable  opinion  that  the  matter  of  the 
Sacrament  of  sacerdotal  ordination  consists  in  the  second  imposition  of 
hands — manuum  extensio;  the  accompanying  prayer  of  the  bishop  consti¬ 
tuting  the  form. 

LI 

Oanones  762-769. 

LII 

Canones  1060-1062. 

LIU 

Canones  1063‘-1065. 

LIV 

Canones  1095-1096. 

LV 

Canones  1250-1254. 

LVI 

Although  the  precise  year  of  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch 
cannot  be  determined,  the  approximate  date  is  probably  between  107-110 
A.  D. 

LVII 

The  distinction  between  the  priesthood  and  the  episcopate,  and  the  supe¬ 
riority  of  the  former  over  the  diaconate,  is  distinctly  set  forth  in  the 
epistles  of  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch. 


117 


LVIII 

The  importance  of  St.  Polycarp  of  Smyrna  as  a  witness  for  early  ecclesi¬ 
astical  tradition  is  vouched  for  by  his  intimate  relations  with  the  Apostle 
St.  John,  with  his  contemporaries,  and  with  his  own  disciples. 

LIX 

Although  the  principles  of  religious  freedom  and  equality  had  made 
progress  during  the  war  of  the  American  Revolution,  the  Constitutions 
adopted  by  the  several  States  and  the  laws  passed  to  regulate  the  new 
governments  established,  show  that  religious  intolerance  had  not  been 
removed. 

LX 

Despite  the  diflBculties  with  which  it  had  to  contend,  the  Catholic  Church 
in  the  early  history  of  the  United  States  made  constant  progress  both 
materially  and  spiritually. 


Vidit  Sacra  Facultas: 

Carolus  F.  Aiken,  S.  T.  D.,  p.  t.  Decanus 
Henricus  Schumacher,  S.  T.  D.,  p.  t.  a  Secretis 

Vidit  Rector  Universitatis : 

Thomas  J.  Shahan,  S.  T.  D. 


BIOGEAPHICAL 


Eomuald  Alphonse  Mollaun  was  born  at  Oldenburg,  Indiana, 
September  26,  1894.  He  received  his  elementary  education  at  Holy 
Family  School,  Oldenburg,  Indiana,  and  his  classical  training  at 
St.  Francis  Preparatory  Seminary,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  whereupon  he 
entered  the  Order  of  Friars  Minor,  August  15,  1913.  After  his 
religious  profession  he  pursued  the  prescribed  courses  in  philosophy 
and  theology  and  was  ordained  to  the  priesthood  June  11,  1920. 
In  the  fall  of  the  same  year  he  matriculated  at  the  Catholic  Uni¬ 
versity  of  America  and  pursued  courses  in  the  School  of  the  Sacred 
Sciences,  specializing  in  Hew  Testament  exegesis.  He  obtained  the 
degrees  of  S.  T.  B.  and  S.  T.  L.  in  1921. 


I 


^  ^  f  I 


:L 


:r/ r  L I '/I ‘  vio 

!  I. 

I  <)  I: n  > 


ill 

'  >  .• 

i 

i.  • 


If 


DATE  DUE 


■JUh  ®  i 

THE  LIBRARY  STORE  #47-0207 


».»■'«  i  • 

k'i  *'  •  *,«?•  !•',.>! '•.* 

Kr'«r«  k  %  )l!  kl  *' *  ’* 

'-V'  •  »■  •  ••  •'  •;  it  *.  •  ♦*  *1 

|>rl  I  kuri*  I't  a  >  all  a;  a- a  aiaaiv  •!  a  ila 


